1. No category

Centre for Advanced Engineering
Submission on the Draft Statement of Science Investment
12 August 2014
Introductory Comments
1.
CAE believes that the New Zealand R&D and Innovation system can be
improved in order to deliver increased economic outcomes for New Zealand.
2.
In this submission CAE seeks: first – more government direction of funding,
more concentration of effort, and a significant reduction in competition and
the fragmentation it causes; and second – much greater connectivity with the
international industrial community, and initiatives to attract much greater
flows of foreign talent to work in the R&D and Innovation system.
3.
The initiatives proposed in this submission would facilitate a much greater
involvement and contribution from many sophisticated and talented New
Zealand scientists, clinicians and engineers.
Submission
4.
The R&D, Innovation, and Science Investment programmes should be
progressively adapted to facilitate:
a)
An increased focus on science and technology relevant to New
Zealand’s economic development.
b)
An increase in collaboration and networking.
c)
An increase in the involvement of foreign technology based companies.
d)
An increased flow of international talent.
5.
The key mechanisms proposed to achieve the above goals are:
a)
Increase the number of Centres of Excellence that are focused on
technology of relevance to New Zealand’s economy and economic
strategies.
b)
Increase participation of international companies in Centres of
Excellence and redesigning some aspects of Government funding to
explicitly recognise funding from international companies as a positive.
c)
Increase scholarship programmes and talent-based initiatives, which
will bring new international capability into New Zealand from student to
researcher level.
| www.cae.co.nz
PO Box 5846, Wellington 6145, New Zealand
Increasing the focus on science and technology that is relevant to New Zealand’s
economic development
6.
A prerequisite for the development of a more broadly based and sophisticated
economy is an increase in both science and technology innovation and
development that is relevant to New Zealand’s economic wellbeing and social
development. Thus CAE supports the key priorities statement on page 8 of the
draft Statement, which includes placing a new emphasis on science
investments that will ‘… impact on NZ, … support future needs or growth, … is
more industry led and … which strengthens international connectivity’.
7.
The stronger linking of the government’s economic development strategy
with science and technology development investments is implied in the new
priorities listed. However, the structure of the funding streams and the rules
around their allocation tend, in CAE’s experience, to support the status quo.
Funding allocations do not appear to be overly informed by strategic
considerations and there doesn’t appear to be any clearly obvious process to
identify and invest in strategically important areas.
8.
A further feature of the current science and investment system is that
economically relevant science and technology-based programmes tend to get
supported only when there are matching industry commitments. However,
strategically or economically important science and technology platforms may
need to be created and supported prior to the development of a supportive
commercial environment.
Increasing collaboration and networking and the development of more Centres of
Excellence
9.
There are two features of the existing science and technology system that
really stand out:
a)
There is frustration amongst researchers at the constant process of
bidding for funds when success rates are low, complicated by
uncertainties about selection criteria and focus.
b)
The big successes and gains are occurring when there is collaboration
and cooperation amongst researchers and research organisations. The
best examples are the Centres of Research Excellence (CoREs) and a
number of sophisticated technology platforms.
| www.cae.co.nz
PO Box 5846, Wellington 6145, New Zealand
10.
The creation of more collaborations in science and technology areas that are
economically attractive and strategically important is strongly supported.
These collaborations could be called Centres of Excellence, and be hosted by a
University as with the CoREs, or established as stand-alone organisations.
11.
Centres of Excellence could be formed and underpinned by long-term (say six
year) funding under a performance contract when all or some of several
criteria are met, for example:
a)
When there is an extensive capability across numerous small research
centres and where coordination and collaboration could accelerate
advancement and outcomes.
b)
When a newly developed technology has export potential, but needs to
be developed and commercialised further to enable it to be used and
exported successfully by firms.
c)
Where New Zealand has significant capability and experience in a
sector, and where a coordinated approach across science, technology
and commercial interests can be packaged and promoted to foreign
countries and industry interests.
d)
When a CoRE needs/justifies improved technology and
commercialisation and transfer capability, and especially coordinated
collaborations with international companies.
Increasing the involvement of foreign technology based companies
12.
In the same way that New Zealand manufacturing needs international
markets, New Zealand R&D and innovation needs to be seen as an
internationally traded good, and international linkages actively fostered.
International companies can immediately bring new capital, knowhow,
stretch, experience and deep knowledge of pathways to market. There are
potentially major gains by encouraging their expanded involvement in the
New Zealand R&D system. The challenge is to attract them and then structure
their involvement so that long-term associations develop and there are
increasing spillovers.
13.
This is hardly a novel idea as most of the important science and technology
undertaken in New Zealand is targeted into international markets. The CoREs
illustrate this. With few exceptions, the pathway currently involves the
progressive transfer of knowledge from New Zealand companies to foreign
companies, often in the start-up phase. The suggestion is simply to facilitate
this process through the design of the R&D and Innovation system while
| www.cae.co.nz
PO Box 5846, Wellington 6145, New Zealand
maximising the benefit to New Zealand. The development and profitable
transfer of New Zealand science and technology into the international
economy can be greatly accelerated by international companies.
14.
There are already many international companies active in New Zealand, often
with New Zealand based subsidiaries, which are the remaining elements of
the original New Zealand entity. These companies are often undertaking R&D
or sophisticated manufacturing, e.g. Trimble, Enztec and Gurit NZ. Anecdotal
evidence is that New Zealand is an attractive place to do R&D – because it is a
relatively easy place to recruit mobile international specialists, local
universities produce a steady flow of excellent graduates, and the general cost
of doing R&D is internationally competitive.
15.
The attraction of New Zealand as a place for foreign firms to establish R&D
activities could be enhanced by creating more CoREs and Centres of
Excellence, and by actively promoting their activities and the emerging
opportunities. The Maurice Wilkins Centre does this all the time, hence their
success. A current new opportunity would be getting GE Healthcare into the
Christchurch health precinct. The packaging of New Zealand science and
technology is currently complicated by the competitive nature of the
University science funding systems and the fragmentation of most science and
technology activities, as noted in the sections above.
16.
The more active involvement of foreign companies in New Zealand R&D and
Innovation activities would also enable the introduction of the more
sophisticated and value adding innovation processes found internationally,
including the proactive ‘mothering’ of New Zealand owned start-ups by larger
companies – something that few large New Zealand companies have
traditionally been involved in.
Increasing the flow of international talent
17.
In addition, initiatives to stimulate an increased flow of international
researchers, post graduate and post doctorate students, and experienced
innovators and cutting edge professionals will all provide an increased level of
energy and international interest in the New Zealand science and technology
system. Where these people return to their own countries, it will facilitate
ongoing, significant, relationships.
| www.cae.co.nz
PO Box 5846, Wellington 6145, New Zealand
18.
Mechanisms to enhance access to international capability include developing
the existing scholarship programmes to further support the CoREs and the
proposed Centres of Excellence, developing new programmes to support firm
based initiatives and further supporting existing initiatives such as Talent NZ,
and the idea of talent visas.
Concluding Comments
19.
This submission is endorsed by the board of CAE. CAE would be pleased to
elaborate on the submission and assist officials in this review.
About the Centre for Advanced Engineering
20.
The Centre for Advanced Engineering (CAE) is an independent charitable trust
that believes in a technology-based future for the New Zealand economy. For
nearly 25 years the CAE has made significant contributions in the fields of
infrastructure resilience and natural hazards, energy and construction, and,
more recently, the CAE has also adopted a much broader mandate around
accelerating the development of the New Zealand technology based
economy.
21.
This submission is informed by CAE’s extensive contacts with scientists,
engineers, innovators and firms and organisations who are directly involved in
the R&D and Innovation system, and in addition by a number of meetings of
interested groups organised by the CAE, which have met for the purpose of
discussing the acceleration of the technology economy, the state of the R&D
and Innovation system and, more recently, the Draft Statement of Science
Investment.
Richard Bentley
Chief Executive Officer
| www.cae.co.nz
PO Box 5846, Wellington 6145, New Zealand
19 December 2014
National Statement of Science Investment team
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Feedback on draft National Statement of Science Investment from the Marsden
Fund Council
The Marsden Fund Council has considered the draft National Statement of Science
Investment and compiled some feedback, which is on the attached document. I am
forwarding this to you on behalf of the Chair of the Marsden Fund Council, Professor Juliet
Gerrard.
Yours faithfully
Peter Gilberd
Deputy Manager, Research Funding Royal Society of New Zealand
Funding for research excellence
The Marsden Fund is administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand, PO Box 598, Wellington 6140
Tel: +64 4 470 5799, Email: [email protected], www.royalsociety.org.nz/marsden
Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-20241
– feedback from the Marsden Fund Council
Summary
We welcome the introduction of a National Statement of Science Investment in New Zealand, and
the importance that the government has placed on this portfolio, as reflected in the increased
investment over the last five years.
We agree with the goal of reducing the complexity of the system and focussing efforts, to allow
scientists to ‘get on with the job’ of innovation, rather than get bogged down in bidding into
prescribed RfPs, detailed reporting and accountability, which can stifle creativity.
We urge the Minister to pursue a more coherent vision of the science system, with strong
innovation pipelines and good connectivity between institutions and funding pools to transfer
knowledge and expertise.
We see three key areas for improvement:
1
2

We are concerned that the Government plans to “clearly prioritise mission-led and businessled investment according to national needs and potential benefit to New Zealand.” We see
investigator-led research as the seed-bed of ideas to feed New Zealand’s innovation
pipelines, and believe that mechanisms to encourage investigator-led research should be
available right across the science portfolio. History shows that some of the greatest
innovations stem from investigator-led research.2

Investigator-led research is extremely competitive in New Zealand; many world class
research projects are rejected each year. Whilst this ensures excellent quality in all research
that is funded by the Marsden Fund Council, it also creates frustrations and ultimately
retention issues for our brightest investigators. Small-scale, highly competitive funding
pools inhibit the collaborative networks to which the government aspires. We have
welcomed increases to the Marsden Fund, but these need to continue in order to foster a
vibrant New Zealand research community.

The Marsden Fund, along with other investigator-led research programmes, train a broad
base of talent appropriate for today’s versatile workforce. We see career development of
these scientists, especially at the postdoctoral level, as a weak link in the New Zealand
science system. This threatens future science capability in New Zealand.
www.msi.govt.nz/update-me/major-projects/national-statement-of-science-investment
In the New Zealand context, examples of long term benefits of Marsden-funded projects from the early years of the fund are included in Appendix 1. There are many
more examples of Marsden projects leading to impact, e.g. i) a project led by Professor Wei Gao, "High Dispersion of Nano Particles in Alloy Coatings" resulted in two
patents currently in a company which is developing the technology into novel ways of coating metal alloys that significantly reduce cost and environmental impact; ii)
from a project led by Dr Vickery Arcus, "Rapid Evolution of a New Protein Domain for Molecular Recognition", patents are now being developed by the joint UniServices
and Waikatolink spin-out company O'Bodies.
Page 1
Position of the Marsden Fund in the Science System
We fund investigator-led, world class research that allows our brightest researchers to take risks and
work on their best ideas. We support young researchers, foster international connectivity and
ensure New Zealand creativity has a place on the world stage. Marsden Fund Research is a guardian
of excellence in the science system, with a strong commitment to rigorous international peer review,
and a benchmark for aspiring researchers. In the long term, this excellent research yields broad
benefits for New Zealand, consistent with the broad range of research that we fund. Some examples
are this year being highlighted in our 20 year celebration (see Appendix 1). Marsden research is the
test bed for bold, risky ideas, the research that will spawn the next generation of National Science
Challenges.
Of the seven key priorities listed in the draft NSSI, we makes a particular contribution to three :
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality: Science excellence is correctly listed at the top
of the priority list, as it is a fundamental requirement for all funding pools. For Marsden-funded
research, excellence is the dominant criterion for funding. For mission- and industry-led research,
excellence is a necessary but not sufficient condition. We believe we have rigorous systems in place
to assess excellence, and share good practice with other funding agencies when called upon.
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga: We embrace the MBIE Vision Mātauranga Strategy in
many of our research projects, particularly those in the environmental and social sciences, where
there is great potential to unlock the potential of Māori knowledge for the wider benefit of New
Zealand. The inclusion of Vision Mātauranga in our funding processes has led to outstanding
research that has unlocked the “innovation potential of Māori knowledge, resources and people to
assist New Zealanders to create a better future”. Such research has spanned all four themes of
economic growth, environmental sustainability, improved health and social wellbeing, and
indigenous knowledge.3 Applicants to the Marsden Fund are encouraged to engage with Māori,
where appropriate, and to consider how to design, carry out and disseminate their research in a
way that maximises its potential. By including Vision Mātauranga within the application process, we
have encouraged the New Zealand research community as a whole to think inclusively, plan
responsibly, and acknowledge the social impacts of their research. Increased Māori participation in
science and innovation is not specifically addressed by Vision Mātauranga, but is an indirect
outcome.
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our science
system to benefit NZ: Formation of international relationships naturally follows as consequence of
Marsden's focus on research excellence: over half of Marsden projects are contracted with teams
including international investigators (53% in 2013), and, by the time they complete, 90% of
Marsden Fund contracts report significant linkages with researchers based outside New Zealand. It
is essential that New Zealand researchers present their work on the world stage, attracting the
attention not only of other researchers but of overseas companies. Global connectivity is vital to
connect researchers to new developments, and bring new ideas and techniques to New Zealand,
but this connectivity cannot be engineered in a top-down approach.
3
Examples include: research on Māori entrepreneurship; co-management of the environment; heart disease; bullying and victimisation of youth; and the history and
development of New Zealand’s three official languages.
Page 2
Response to Specific Questions of Relevance to the Marsden Fund and its Downstream Impacts:
We have focussed our submission on the questions listed that are relevant to the three priorities
above, and restricted broader commentary, which will be the focus of submissions from other
groupings.
FEEDBACK ON OVERALL SCIENCE INVESTMENT OUTLOOK
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In particular:
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and industry-led
funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
Investigator-led research is underfunded across the science portfolio. In the specific case of
Marsden, with success rates below 10%, we only fund a third to a half of the projects that are rated
by international experts and the national expert panels as excellent and clearly worthy of funding.
Many of the projects may prove transformative to New Zealand in the long term. Further, there
should be more space for investigator-led research within the mission- and industry-led
programmes, where creativity is often stifled by very prescriptive RfPs written by non-experts in the
field.
8. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they be made
to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment mechanisms, or too
many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be combined, changed or removed to
simplify the system?
Better connectivity between funding sources would greatly strengthen the ability of scientists to
take fundamental research through to impact. The Marsden Fund is currently one of the only places
to develop new platforms of research and test new ideas – the seed bed for the next national
science challenges. However, at the end of a three year project, the researcher is unlikely to find an
RfP for which the successful ideas are in scope. A mechanism to capture those basic ideas that could
be translated into something useful for New Zealand would improve our ability to turn great ideas
into actual benefit. Improving connections between Marsden projects, CoRES, the National Science
Challenges and MBIE programmes, and simplifying mechanisms for ‘follow on funding’ would
strengthen the innovation networks.
9. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well do
existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms could advance
this goal?
Basic, investigator-led research is very commonly carried out in collaboration with international
researchers, and increased funding for such research will naturally lead to stronger international
networks for New Zealand researchers. As mentioned in discussion of priority 7 above, Marsdenfunded research actively fosters international collaboration. We believe that embedding travel
funding within integrated research programmes is more likely to cement international networks
than running isolated travel funds.
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION
11. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance and impact
of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should investigator-, mission- or
industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a sound pathway to impact and
Page 3
application, even if long term?
All government funded research should be of the highest quality. Relevance or impact will be of
higher importance for the mission- and industry-led work, but all should be built on a strong quality
base. Basic, investigator-led research is risky, and not all of it will lead to impact, by definition.
However, there should be clear mechanisms to pursue research that may lead to impact, with clear
stop/go points along the pathway.
We should measure the impact of the science system as a whole, on a long term basis.
12. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger contribution
to business innovation and economic growth?
b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as priorities for
our science investments?
Science investment needs to be balanced. An important part of New Zealand’s science investment is
the nurturing of our talented pool of investigators through sound career paths in which they can
exercise their creativity, without the stresses of short term contracts and highly prescriptive research
programmes. Fundamental research is the base of the science investment pyramid and the primary
mechanism by which we make sure that we retain highly talented scientists in New Zealand.
17. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
Rigorous international peer review of proposals and progress reports is not without its challenges,
but remains the international gold standard for judging quality across a range of disciplines that do
not have sufficient depth of coverage in New Zealand to allow us to confidently achieve this
nationally. Other than that, quality is likely to improve when scientists are trusted to follow their
passions and deliver, unfettered by the overhead on their time that comes with reporting against a
large number of highly prescribed and detailed criteria. The Marsden Fund operates a system of
specialist assessor visits combined with simple reporting which is efficient and effective at sustaining
and assessing the quality and impact of the work we support and is more effective than prescriptive
reporting against defined KPIs.
18. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and industry-led research? If
so, how?
See question 11. All research should be assessed for science quality. Mission-led and industry-led
research will have additional assessment criteria related to likely impact. Good science can lead to
impact, but poor science never does.
19. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research community
and research-active companies?
See answer to Q9, above. International research networks will include research-active companies.
Current mechanisms for accessing funding for research-active scientists to promote New Zealand as
a science and innovation-led hub are inefficient in terms of the overhead on scientists’ time to
access the funding.
Page 4
Appendix 1: Making a difference to New Zealand – Marsden Fund success stories
As part of its twentieth birthday celebrations, the Marsden Fund has been celebrating some of the
ground-breaking research that it has funded for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Links to the
various aspects of the celebration can be accessed from the web page,
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/programmes/funds/marsden/marsden20/
A leaflet, “Making a difference to New Zealand”, has been produced to feature the research of
twelve outstanding researchers who have been supported by the Marsden Fund. The leaflet is
enclosed with this submission. The stories featured in that leaflet are recorded below.
1. SUPERCONDUCTORS
Powering the future
Jeff Tallon, Principal Scientist, Robinson Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington
Thanks to many years of research, and because New Zealand backed a team of talented scientists in
a highly competitive field, we are now poised at the forefront of new industries based on hightemperature superconductors.
The problem with superconductivity - the ability to conduct electricity with no resistance – has been
that most materials only display this behaviour at hundreds of degrees below freezing. So far the
best known applications of superconductors have been MRI scans and test high-speed magneticlevitation trains. New Zealand scientists have been pivotal in the slow task of making
superconductors more practical: finding materials that superconduct at significantly higher
temperatures, making superconducting wires less brittle, and helping us understand the complex and
still-mysterious physics involved.
2. ECOSYSTEM BOUNDARIES
Re-weaving the web of life
Jason Tylianakis, Professor of Terrestrial Ecology, University of Canterbury
Caterpillars can cause major damage to pine plantations. By cleverly measuring how species move
between different areas of vegetation, researchers have found that nearby native forest actually
helps control pest incursions into pine forests, by providing a source of caterpillar-controlling wasps.
Outbreaks in exotic forests, on the other hand, upset the balance in nearby, more diverse native
ecosystems.
More recently, a world-leading experiment by the team examined the combined impact of future
climate change and increased fertiliser use on pest species. Heating coils were placed under the
earth and nitrogen-rich fertiliser added to the soil. Herbivores increased disproportionally with
important implications for both crop protection and carbon sequestration. Now the research has led
onto additional work on how climate change and nitrification alter soil microbe activity, a huge factor
affecting the carbon balance worldwide.
Page 5
3. PSYCHOLOGY
Social media and our drinking culture
Antonia Lyons, Associate Professor of Psychology, Massey University
In the digital age, New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture has gone online. Young adults organise
drinking activities on social networking sites, know and emulate celebrity drinking culture, then
‘celebritise’ their own behaviour by posting images online. Differences exist, with women more wary
of how they look, and young Māori, Pasifika or unemployed adults more careful about what they put
online.
New marketing techniques – such as using geolocation-enabled smartphone notifications of nearby
drinks specials – are often welcomed by internet savvy young people. But this marketing penetrates
far into friend networks, and blurs the line between commercial and non-commercial content. To
tackle the expensive and difficult social issue of problematic youth drinking, we need to understand
how social media affects and reinforces our culture of drinking to intoxication.
4. PROTEIN BIOCHEMISTRY
The life and death of a cell
Catherine Day, Professor of Biochemistry, University of Otago
The number of cells in the human body is maintained by the miraculously delicate balance between
cell division and cell death. If too few cells die, illnesses such as cancer or autoimmune disease can
result.
It's a long-term goal determining the three-dimensional structure and workings of the proteins – the
biological workhorses at the molecular level – that regulate these processes.
Unique and internationally valued research over the last 20 years has taken important steps forward
– understanding how particular proteins attach together and discovering ways to regulate these
interactions.
The work has now contributed to an understanding of how cell death is regulated and how initial
drugs can be improved to efficiently trigger cell death for cancer treatment.
5. GEOMETRY
The elegant shape of space
Dillon Mayhew, Senior Lecturer in Mathematics, Victoria University of Wellington
New Zealand has developed a huge reputation in certain areas of theoretical mathematics. The
study of matroids is one; a theory that follows the traditions of ancient Greek and Babylonian
mathematicians in better understanding the arrangements of objects in space.
Matroids have long had practical applications, particularly in optimisation problems, such as finding
the cheapest way to build a network of roads or organising airport flight schedules. Because
matroids are good at representing the kind of discrete '0s and 1s' space that computers use, future
applications will likely be in computer science. Mathematics is a slow burn science, where a hundred
years can elapse before a theory becomes useful in everyday life. Right now, however, this worldleading research contributes to the elegance, interest and beauty of life.
Page 6
6. LANGUAGE
A unique variety of English
Jennifer Hay, Professor of Linguistics, University of Canterbury
New Zealand makes a great natural laboratory, not least in the way our speech has developed over
time. Between 1946 and 1948, a mobile unit toured the country recording the stories of pioneer
New Zealanders, some born as early as the 1850s. Together with later recordings, these make ‘New
Zealandese’ the only variety of English for which recordings are available that cover its entire history.
Shortly after our first settlers arrived with a variety of dialects, their children were heard speaking
with what was disparagingly called a 'colonial twang'. The researchers examined how the
development of this varied around the country, and combined archival work with innovative
experiments to provide important insights into how we speak, how we listen, and how languages
evolve over time.
7. MĀORI CULTURE
Sustaining the art of moko
Ngahuia Te Awekotuku, Professor of Māori Research and Development, University of Waikato
After almost dying out in the 20th century, moko is now worn by many young Māori as a symbol of
identity and ethnic pride. The research team looked at the history and technology of moko –
searching through old manuscripts and artefacts held by institutions across the world.
Community participation was an essential part of documenting the modern moko revival. The
Marsden-funded research team interviewed moko wearers and artists and examined the cultural and
spiritual issues surrounding moko wearing, including the controversy sometimes apparent in modern
life. They also examined the exploitation of moko in popular culture around the world by figures such
as rock singers and football players. Finally the research was beautifully documented in Mau Moko:
the world of Māori tattoo, the winner of the inaugural Ngā Kupu Ora Māori book of the decade.
8. FERTILITY
What makes a good egg?
Ken McNatty, Professor of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington
After a phone call from an Akaroa farmer, whose sheep just kept on having triplets, scientists
developed a very fertile herd. Then the mutation and growth factor found in the sheep's eggs
themselves produced the realisation that eggs control their own environment: changing how cells
surrounding the egg behave, determining the number of offspring and even keeping a check on
ovarian cancer.
This research has led to a new technique which helps humans. By measuring a few key genes in the
discarded cells next to IVF fertilised eggs, the best eggs can be chosen for implantation, dramatically
increasing fertility clinic success rates. In future, these new insights may also help limit reproduction
in mammalian pests such as wild deer, wild dogs or even possums.
Page 7
9. NEW MEDICINES
Healing wounds
Colin Green, Professor of Ophthalmology, University of Auckland
Shortly after the start of the Marsden Fund, student curiosity led to a surprise discovery. Rather than
making a brain injury worse, a synthetic DNA sequence that reduced cell-to-cell communication
actually limited the how far the lesion grew. This serendipitous finding began a research programme
of nearly 20 years.
Another chance event, the successful healing of a seemingly untreatable chemical eye burn, took the
research team in the direction of non-healing wounds. Now Nexagon – a clear gel that is dripped
onto wounds such as venous or diabetic leg ulcers – is ready for Phase III clinical trials. A new culture
of entrepreneurship prevails in the research group, which is working towards treating diseases that
require systemic delivery, such as strokes or heart attacks, and novel approaches to cancer therapy.
10. BIOENGINEERING
From molecules to mankind
Peter Hunter, Professor of Engineering Science & Director, Auckland Bioengineering Inst., University
of Auckland
Diseases involve a complex array of factors, from genetic and environmental causes to the interplay
between different organs. The Physiome Project integrates all-of-body systems to develop a
personalised 3D model of an entire human being.
Work that began modelling the human heart has developed into a 200-person cross-faculty research
institute, leading the world in the integration of computational physiology with medical device
technologies. Aspects of heart disease and arrhythmia can already be simulated for a particular
person. Work is now bringing all 12 of the body's organ systems together. Within a few years
computer models may be used to personalise medicine, trial new drugs or perform virtual surgery,
producing individualised, more effective and lower cost healthcare.
11. MEMORY
Puzzles of the human mind
Harlene Hayne, Vice Chancellor & Professor of Psychology, University of Otago
Early childhood experiences have a major impact on human development. Given this, it is puzzling
that as adults we have little or no memory for these early, important experiences. A series of
ingenious experiments that first began with Dunedin infants in 1995 has thrown light on this by
demonstrating when children first develop different types of memory, how those memories are
accessed and how the language used by parents can affect which memories are established and
maintained.
Combining innovative research techniques with extensive community links, the researchers have
disseminated their findings to parents, teachers, lawyers and as advice to government. Further
research that followed the Marsden-funded work has examined the connections between
adolescent brain development, alcohol use, and risk taking.
Page 8
12. EARTHQUAKES
Unlocking the secrets of tectonic plates
Martin Reyners, Principal Scientist, GNS Science
By using earthquake waves themselves to map our underlying plates – the earthquake equivalent of
a medical scan – Marsden-funded researchers have developed a three-dimensional model of the
rock structure under New Zealand. The project explains why our tectonic plates are locked in some
areas but not others; rock with more fluid moving through it tends to cause faults to slide. This
knowledge helps us understand where strain might be building up across the country.
After the Canterbury earthquakes, the model was able to provide an explanation for some of the
puzzling features of those shakes: why there was a five and a half month delay between large
quakes, why the larger earthquakes involved so much shaking, and why all the aftershocks migrated
to the east, rather than both ways.
Page 9
August 21st, 2014
MBIE
WELLINGTON
To whom it may concern,
DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT
eResearch 2020 is pleased to submit feedback on the draft National Statement of Science Investment. In general,
the collected contributions of eResearch 2020 participants (www.eresearch2020.org.nz) suggest the following
implications for science investment:
-
-
-
-
As a science system, we are under-investing in the broad-based research skills and methodological
training that underpins the shift in research methods to digital evidence and data intensive discovery,
which is consequently putting at risk the quality of our research outputs today and into the future.
Within institutions, governance and planning of contestable funds is poorly aligned with the governance
and planning of institutional funds, leading to sub-optimal application in the balance of Government
investment in science overall.
Impactful research collaboration usually occurs at the research-discipline level, not at institutional level.
Greater explicit investment support for research-discipline led collaboration (rather than institutional
collaboration), such as CoREs, NSCs, and support for discipline-based national research societies is likely
to led to greater cohesion, knowledge exchange, and collaborative research outcomes across the system.
Impactful research and major innovation or discovery in the coming decade is likely to stem from teams of
researchers working across disciplines, institutions, and national borders, with significant reliance on
compute, integrated systems, sensor networks, and (big) data, accompanied by a proliferation of data
sources and uses. Rather than lag behind comparator countries in science, provision should be made
early for investment in capacity and capability in data, visualisation, and digital research expertise, so that
the New Zealand science system might continue to contribute to economic productivity and
competitiveness, and improve health, social and environmental outcomes at 1st world levels.
About eResearch 2020
The eResearch 2020 outreach programme is a future oriented, national conversation with key leaders within the
research sector that aims to assemble a comprehensive vision of researcher needs and essential skills over the
coming decade. eResearch 2020 is led by NeSI with both REANNZ and NZGL as co-patrons together taking a
combined approach to facilitating national discussions. eResearch 2020 brings researchers across disciplines
together to focus on particular themes, be it on research sector cloud strategies; skills gaps; institutional
governance of research capabilities, or the infrastructure needs of the National Science Challenges and the Centres
of Research Excellence.
The future of research is digital
Early comment from eResearch 2020 programme participants indicates that the future of research is synonymous
with the future of eResearch, where the standards, skills, and expectations that are currently the domain of a few,
select data and ICT research groups, need to diffuse into our wider research sector to become pervasive and
habitual.
Research methods & expectations are changing:
The fourth paradigm of research – “data intensive discovery” is expanding the tools and resources available to help
researchers understand the world at an accelerating pace. In health; the natural environment; agriculture; urban
planning, or in responding to security needs or hazards, we see major growth in the use of telemetric sensors,
genomic sequencing, radio telescopes, social media, geospatial and sources of real time information.
All of this is producing data that allow researchers to move beyond theoretical models of the world around us, and
towards understanding and optimising systems (pastures, forests, factories, or energy grids) in real time.
International standards for the quantity and quality of research evidence – data – are becoming more difficult for
New Zealand researchers to achieve.
“Inevitably, our society’s problems in the future are going to have a data & computation
aspect to them.”
www.eresearch2020.org.nz
We are falling behind …
Our abilities as individual researchers, and as a national research system to collect, validate, analyse, visualise,
store, and curate research data are not keeping up with international expectations – in many cases, of the skills
and research resources needed, we are considerably behind. Our research institutions appear to struggle to
coordinate their strategies; the culture in our institutions may overly emphasise the historical “information
services” focus on their corporate needs rather than prioritising needs that support their research mission, and our
major scientific endeavours appear to lack the effective, cooperative tools and support to be able to live up to
modern expectations for research data. Many of our New Zealand researchers are not sufficiently exposed to new
information technology in research (commonly called eResearch) nor familiar or confident with 21st century
methodologies or requirements for reproducibility in science. Instead, we observe a potential gap in national
policy in New Zealand that leaves our universities, our Crown Research Institutes, and our research community
fragmented and often competing in the research data space.
Evidence of this potential gap may include the weak links between the governance of researcher goals and the
long-term planning in our research institutions. Additionally, we have launched new initiatives, such as the
National Science Challenges, without a strong understanding of the data infrastructure implications of these
initiatives, and we have not yet built collaboration in data infrastructure into the foundations of our planning nor
our funding.
One scenario suggests that, if we do not take a coordinated approach across the research sector to resourcing and
managing the research data lifecycle, and in altering the culture in our research institutions to engage with data
intensive discovery, a significant majority of New Zealand researchers may soon struggle to publish their work in
international journals, and the rankings of our universities may (continue to) fall.
Some fundamental messages include …
We see a splitting of corporate and research data needs and consequently diverging investment strategies for
each. As service providers and “all of government agreements” mature, more and more of corporate data needs
can be provided effectively and at scale by cloud services and consumer technologies. Research data and analysis
is likely always to be behind the corporate curve in terms of mature services – and therefore effective scale – as
the models are different. An increasing number of tools, both commercial and open source, are coming online
focused specifically on the research data lifecycle, but these are of quite a different nature to corporate and
consumer technologies. Right from the first stage of data generation, research equipment and instruments are
increasingly complex and capital intensive, yet often are not shared nor well-connected to enable data processing
and in some cases remote operation. No single New Zealand research institution is likely to effectively meet the
2|P a g e
specialised and various needs of New Zealand research data at scale; therefore leadership from Government or
otherwise neutral agents is likely to continue to be required to ensure cooperation across the research system.
Where should we be aiming?
Our research sector needs to function as a best in class small country sector, leveraging larger resources off-shore,
but maintaining key skills and core capabilities in NZ. Some of those core capabilities and skills include but are not
limited to:
-
-
The ability to understand and optimise at a system level (e.g. a pasture; a water catchment; a hospital) in real
time, as data streams in.
The ability to plan for and collaboratively respond in real time to an emerging situation (e.g. a volcano
eruption; an earthquake; a disease outbreak) across multiple research institutions and government
departments.
The ability to visualise tightly coupled, complex data and compute models, to allow interactions with data that
enable innovation and serendipitous discovery;
The ability to track, store, secure, manage, and share private, public, and proprietary data across social
networks, public services, and research institutions.
“At clinical scale the quantity of (genetic) data, and the processing required to make sense of
it, will quickly eclipse the current infrastructure capabilities in NZ.”
www.eresearch2020.org.nz
The changing pace of tools and technologies, and the explosion in the use of data for decision making in
government, industry and society make our ability to work with advanced computational and data analysis
techniques in the research field even more vitally important. New Zealand research is strong on foundational
capabilities such as open source software platforms and data lifecycle leadership in specific domains (e.g. Climate,
Bioengineering, Geonet); however these eResearch capabilities are yet to be well-engaged by governance, strategy
and policy in the research system and our research institutions. Data intensive research is a complex terrain of
highly specialised and varied needs, and the aspirations of our researchers are often frustrated by a lack of visibility
or support across their research community. There may be a need for clear policy position to be developed for all
publicly funded research which requires long term access to data (the evidence) as well as the research output.
Technology is changing the future of research just as rapidly as other areas of our society, yet we run the risk of
not keeping up. The infrastructure, services and support needed for research and data intensive discovery differ
from corporate and consumer needs. It is these research methods and data tools devised in our universities and
research institutes that diffuse out to our society to then drive innovation; improve health care; increase our social
and economic development, and ultimately ensure New Zealand’s status as a first world country.
“If we take a backseat in science, then we are really taking a back seat in economic
development and global competitiveness.”
www.eresearch2020.org.nz
In general, the draft National Statement of Science Investment is clear about the links between science investment
and the economic and social development of New Zealand. Fundamentally, we observe that many New Zealand
researchers are not sufficiently familiar with digital and eResearch methodologies, or with the skills and
capabilities expected of world leading researchers. Consequently, the evidence suggests we face a risk that the
growing lag in the sophistication of our research sector skills will eventually translate into science making a lesser
contribution to our economic competitiveness and social well-being, and possibly limiting our ability to respond to
crises, manage hazards, and make informed decisions as a society.
3|P a g e
Specific NSSI Feedback
Overall Science Investment Outlook
What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science?
There is arguably a gap in explicit funding for collaborative, inter-discipline endeavour. Possibly the most impactful
links for collaboration and impact in science occur at the “research-discipline community” level, within and across
groups of researchers who share a research domain or discipline, rather than an institution or a locale. This might
suggest that mechanisms which promote connectivity, knowledge sharing and cohesiveness within research
disciplines, yet on a national scale, will impact quality, collaboration, and the pace of progress. A fundamental
tenet of eResearch, both in NZ and overseas, has been shared risk and investment into capability and capital
equipment. Such risk and investment sharing depends to a greater degree on a mature culture of collaboration,
often with strongest alignment within a discipline focus. The National Science Challenges are clear examples of a
mechanism which promote connectivity, however the collaborative underpinnings of shared risk and investment in
capability and equipment for these initiatives is missing.
How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of the science and innovation system
overall? Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that are particularly
relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance?
Modern data techniques may offer new opportunities to evaluate collaboration between our research institutions
and the science system overall. In particular, data and funding flows between research institutions can now be
monitored or reported. Funding flows between institutions occur when institutions collaborate on infrastructure,
projects, or events. Monitoring the flows of data and funding between institutions may offer insight into
relationships, collaboration, quality of scientific method, exchange of knowledge, and an evaluation of any barriers
or isolated pools that may exist in the overall system.
To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies and processes, and balance of
investment in different mechanisms, address critical problems either in the science system or to New Zealand as a
whole? What changes could be made to ensure those problems are being addressed?
A critical problem within our science system and to New Zealand as a whole is a lag in adoption of digitally driven
methods and eResearch skills, both in our research sector and in industry. As more and more research activity
moves into the digital domain across all disciplines, we observe that many New Zealand researchers are struggling
to keep up with changing standards within their international research community and associated quality
expectations for evidence, data, and research methodology. Our abilities both as individual researchers and as a
national research system to collect, validate, analyse, visualise, store, and curate research data don’t appear to be
keeping up with international expectations.
This should not be unexpected. Many organisations struggle to keep up with the pace of technological change,
and many research disciplines are particularly susceptible to this struggle. An informal survey quickly reveals that
over 75% of researchers do not have high speed internet at their desks, usually in spite of their institution’s
membership of REANNZ, which suggests a lack of focus on researcher needs. Yet researcher needs are changing;
until very recently, almost all field research data collection in NZ was done with forms and pencils. Not so long
ago, researchers sketched images of fauna or flora samples, and noted broad based observations of habitat rather
than precise location data. Similarly, soil samples were collected in jars, and geographical information was limited
to 10km2 plots. Digitisation of information, use of connected mobile devices, high definition geo-spatial data –
these technologies and many more are changing level of scrutiny, the detail and complexity of information
available to researchers. New tools in genomics, genetics, computation, and modelling permit not only a deeper
understanding of world around us, but also lift expectations for scientific discovery and research quality.
4|P a g e
Along with network services, investments in line of business applications dominate institutional budgets, yet there
may be room for greater cross institution procurement of shared corporate systems such as HR, finance, library,
learning management, grant management, and other corporate services platforms. Similar to the All of
Government approaches, or the Health Benefits Limited initiative in the health sector, shared institutional
information services investments might be worth investigation, if this can ultimately release investment to drive
capability in research and education.
In many areas of research, new storage and analysis technologies offer the opportunity to curate very large
datasets. Land or geological information that used to be kept in large cabinets in map rooms can now be stored in
a fraction of the space and accessed digitally in a fraction of the time. Many of our nationally significant databases
are no longer considered particularly large or complex data sources (though the information they contain still
maintains its relevance). What we have observed is the gap in our ability to leverage the information we are
collecting in our national databases, and a growing gap in the ongoing funding mechanism for supporting data
sources in the long term.
The challenge of change …
Much of this change can be a challenge for researchers, sometimes individually, often as a community. To a
certain extent, this limited or negative engagement with new, technology driven research methods is a feature of
researcher culture. Researchers can be early adopters – Dropbox and other consumer tools are widely used across
all our research organisations; yet researchers are also highly independent, often preferring the self-sufficiency
and control consumer applications allow them to the institutional systems and attempts to homogenise for scale
that are common in corporate ITS. In general, researchers are excited about the potential new technology brings
to their work; however researchers often believe themselves too busy with research and teaching to have to learn
new tools or methods. Many will encourage their post-doctoral and junior fellows to do the leg-work with digital
methods and analysis, rather than learn these methods themselves – without recognising an underlying change in
the standards of evidence and the expectations for impactful, research.
Key areas where New Zealand researchers and research institutions need help to lift their game include:
-
-
-
-
Reproducibility: much of our research output is not sufficiently reproducible science, either due to poor
methods in evidence, a lack of published method, or poorly interpreted results. This includes greater rigour in
designing and publishing computation and data methods. In order to reproduce research findings, we need to
record and reproduce the provenance of research results, including the data semantics, workflows, code, etc.
that produced the research output.
Long term sustainability of data/evidence: almost universally in New Zealand research, no support is available
for storing and managing data beyond the end of the research project that generated it – this is especially the
case for public-funded research data. In several cases, New Zealand research institutions have, or intend to,
delete research data that is no longer supported by research project funding.
Standardised toolsets for research disciplines: we need our graduates to emerge from university already
equipped with digital tools and standards accepted and applied in the fields they are entering. We also need
to adopt comparative standards within and across disciplines for standardised data, such as geo-spatial or
health informatics data.
Methodology and standards that flow into economy and society: in leading digital research sectors, such as
genetics and human health, new technologies and digital data-driven methods are rapidly moving from
research to reality. In these fields in particular, our researchers and research institutions need to be able to
lead the way in terms of methods and practice. Unfortunately, even our leading research institutions often
still lack common meta-data standards and ontologies for sharing information or making decisions.
It would appear that our project funding and resourcing models for research need to be applied to a different scale
and timeframes if we are to understand, manage, and leverage data for scientific insight, social development, or
5|P a g e
economic growth. For many of our leading thinkers and major research institutions, the quantity, frequency, and
detail of data we can now gather simply overwhelms the scope of funding and resource available to work with it.
A number of factors are contributing to this situation:
-
-
-
We typically invest late in infrastructure and big ticket items, and many of our investments are designed to
“catch up” to international standards rather than to advance with them. This strategy reduces risk in the
investment and ensures we take advantage of opportunities to collaborate; however it limits our researchers’
access to new technologies, capabilities and techniques. This lag in access appears to follow through to a
corresponding lag in adoption and ultimately in research impact.
Our research sector is both small and highly fragmented. In many cases, any particular New Zealand research
institution may only have one or two researchers with skills in data intensive research or computational
analysis. Little cross-fertilisation of knowledge and skills occurs at a research institution level, except when
researchers change institution (this is not to say that researchers don’t share information at a community
level, below the institutional engagement layer).
As different research disciplines engage with digital methods at different speeds, expectations of research
output and evidence have become uneven across disciplines.
To a certain extent, our funding system for research rewards quantity of published journal articles, but does
not incentivise continuous improvement in research quality or new methods.
Our fully-funded science system means funding for generating data is captured within projects, which arguably
limits cross-project visibility of data and promotes duplication in data collection. A clear fault occurs when
project funding ends and project generated data is subsequently lost.
Whether we expect the pace of technological change to remain the same, or to accelerate, the future implications
of this lag in digital research methods and evidence are concerning. Purely from a research sector perspective, we
can expect our lack of engagement with new methods to begin to limit our ability to collaborate internationally, to
publish in leading journals, to access international research funding, and to generally lower the quality of New
Zealand research compared with 1st world nations. There are without doubt exceptions to these consequences –
we can quickly identify stars in our research communities who are eResearch leaders on the world stage; however
the gap in skills between our research stars and our general research population is significant. If we consider our
socio-economic well-being to be linked in part to our research sector and our ability to understand the world
around us, then arguably this lag in our eResearch adoption may create limits to our productivity, our social
cohesiveness, or to our capacity to monitor our environment, our borders, or our economy.
To a certain extent, we are once again in a “catch up” situation, however rather than purchase infrastructure, we
are aiming to increase the digital methodology and eResearch literacy of the bulk of our research sector
population. We need to incentivise our researchers to upskill / improve their research methods and expectations
by ensuring funding and resources are tied to quality as well as quantity – where “quality” is measured beyond the
simple check box of “published”. Different publications are of differing standards, and have differing expectations
for evidence, reproducibility, and impact. Government and institutions have already taken significant steps,
including brokering or providing affordable access to infrastructure such as high performance computing. A
further step will be the implementation of training and guidance resources that allow researchers to upskill
themselves. Finally, to overcome inertia and incentivise research engagement, we might consider reserving
premium research funding for researchers who’ve demonstrated engagement and adoption of world-class
methods and tools that have been made available to them, and can therefore certify the quality of their research.
To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they be made to work
together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment mechanisms, or too many? If too few,
where are the gaps? If too many, which could be combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
To the extent that the Government employs both institutional and contestable funding across the science system,
we observe misaligned incentives and disconnected governance of these different types of funding at an
6|P a g e
institutional level. Institutional governance and Research governance work to different funding timeframes,
operate independently when it comes to planning, and are not well engaged (with each other) in the rapidly
changing research environment. Indeed, many researchers complain that senior institutional management do not
understand or wish to engage with the changing paradigm of research methods and data. Our research
institutions are medium to large scale New Zealand enterprises that plan strategic activity against corporate
timeframes over 5 to 15 years, operating within relatively stable “institutional funding”; however our research
committees and researchers operate research strategy against 2 or 3 year funding horizons within a contestable
funding environment.
We suggest this misalignment leads to perverse outcomes, such as research project goals that are artificially
constrained to avoid needing major (expensive) resources, but that have budgets that are inflated to include small
scale capital items that do not lend themselves to shared use. It would be unfair to observe that our institutions
are littered with minor capital equipment acquired through project funding, often poorly maintained or supported,
and that few others in the research sector or even the same institution are aware of – or use. This misalignment
between research governance and institutional planning arguably limits funding for major capital items, as well as
limiting the resources our researchers can access and share. The National Science Challenges and the National
Statement of Science Investment both suggest an attempt to improve whole of system alignment; however it may
be worthwhile for Government to investigate aligning the funding periods of the institutional and contestable
funding mechanisms.
General Feedback on the Direction
Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance and impact of research?
If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded
investments, across most mechanisms, have a sound pathway to impact and application, even if long term?
In the drive to produce science of the highest quality that is also linked to economic and societal outcomes, we’ve
observed that our research sector has matured unevenly in terms of skills, capacity, and impact. In general, those
elements or disciplines most closely linked to large primary industry sectors are the most mature in terms of the
degree to which they collaborate, the high-tech skills retained, access to equipment, and the ability to leverage
advanced methods. Conversely, disciplines linked to less well-off sectors of the economy, or those research
domains that contribute more to social cohesiveness rather than economic output, are in general less mature in
their use of advanced data tools or sophisticated digital and eResearch methodologies. We need to develop tactics
that produce excellent science of the highest quality across all of our relevant science disciplines, not only those
with the highest potential for short-term impact, but also those that focus on sectors of future need or growth. A
key criteria in an increasingly data informed and digitally driven research sector is to ensure researchers maintain
the capability and skills to be able to innovate and to make serendipitous discovery into the future. This
requirement has implications not only for investment strategies in infrastructure and skills, but also in the
potential for incentives to adopt technology and digital methodology to be embedded in Government contestable
funding.
How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science investments? What can we
learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is the appropriate balance in the system between
collaboration and competition? How might the current set-up of New Zealand’s research institutions either
encourage or discourage across-research institution collaborations, international researcher collaborations, or user
collaborations?
In many cases, our institutions appear to struggle with collaboration. It is not clear where institutions should draw
“pre-competitive” lines so they can collaborate on national infrastructure (for example) while creating healthy
competition in research? What we can observe is that collaboration occurs more easily in the realm of contestable
funding, than in institutional funding. In general, this is arguably due to the close, collegial nature of individual
7|P a g e
research discipline communities; therefore Government initiatives that fund collaborative research based around
research disciplines, such as CoREs and NSCs, are more likely to produce impact than those focused on institutional
collaboration. Furthermore, improving the cohesiveness, knowledge exchange, and skills within research discipline
based communities appear more likely to produce greater quality scientific output, than cross-discipline
investments at an institutional level.
Feedback on the Structure of MBIE Sector-Specific Research Funds
How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund? What indicators of scientific
quality should we use in our assessment processes? Should these be the same across all MBIE sector-specific
funding tools?
We have found considerable demand for standards and tools in the research sector that help might individual
researchers, research communities, and institutions align on meta-data, quality and method. To a certain extent,
international standards such as ISO standards for research, or those standards imposed by international research
initiatives are beginning to bring order; however the concern is that as tools and data proliferate, it will become
more difficult to share data for collaboration rather than easier. Overall, to improve the quality and impact of the
science Government funds, we suggest the following worthy of consideration:
-
Aligning contestable funding to incentives for quality;
Connecting governance of institutional and contestable funding to improve the effectiveness of both;
Promoting cohesiveness and knowledge exchange within national research communities, and
Implementing tactics that address the lag in skills uptake between NZ researchers and world leaders.
In addition, our observations suggest that the Indicator “Bachelor or post-graduate degree completions in STEM
subjects” noted on page 29 of the NSSI is unlikely to be a satisfactory measure of “New Zealanders trained as
competent scientists”, but instead should be regarded as a hygiene factor for research competency.
Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available?
A clear concern we have seen in the research community is that the wide range of funding mechanisms are not
explicitly linked to infrastructure or long-term capability. In the case of the National Science Challenges for
example, the questions of collaborative infrastructure and data management arguably needed to be dealt with in
the upfront design of the Challenges (yet as it was specifically excluded from being funded, it was not treated as a
priority during the development of proposals). There still appears to be an opportunity to gain greater cohesion
across the sector through enabling and promoting sharing of risk and investment into the infrastructure and
capability layer that underpins the National Science Challenges.
Critical gaps in our research capability for the coming decade are in the tools, standards, and infrastructure to
support advanced data, analytics and visualisation. In the very near future, our ability to interact with and visualise
data will determine our capacity to innovate, to make serendipitous discovery, to manage our economy and
institutions, and to respond to crises. In both the research sector and the wider economy, our capacity to innovate
and make serendipitous discovery is linked to our ability to understand and leverage information. A major part of
human interaction with information is visual – quite literally, the ability to see what is occurring is a crucial aspect
of understanding and of cooperative endeavour, therefore visualisation will be a critical capability in all research.
Current eResearch practice is still linear, where data-sets inform batch compute processes which produce models
or answers that can then be assessed. As more and more research activity become digitally driven, researchers
(who will be working in groups) will need to visualise this linear process as it occurs, so that they might intervene
to innovate or make discovery. In the near future, visualisation in research will become less concerned with
merely displaying the outputs of science, but instead will be the interface through which researcher understanding
and discovery occur. This will be even more important in research collaboration, where researchers must work
from the same observed points of reference.
8|P a g e
DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF
SCIENCE INVESTMENT 2014-2024
SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND
EMPLOYMENT
21 AUGUST 2014
BACKGROUND TO IPENZ
The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) is the lead national
professional body representing the engineering profession in New Zealand. It has
approximately 15,500 Members, including a cross-section from engineering
students, to practising engineers, to senior Members in positions of responsibility in
business. IPENZ is non-aligned and seeks to contribute to the community in matters
of national interest giving a learned view on important issues, independent of any
commercial interest.
SUMMARY
The key points in this submission are:
•
IPENZ supports investment in science and innovation (S&I) but notes the S&I
system and its objectives must be seen within the context of the overall vision
for New Zealand. Thus, the public sector investment made in S&I must be
justifiable against other potential uses of the investment funding.
•
We believe New Zealand needs a stable, consolidated S&I system. The current
system has too many layers, overlaps and complexity.
•
The Government needs to avoid picking winners, instead focusing on setting
the policy levers to achieve the desired outcomes. The Government also needs
to ensure New Zealand has broad-based research capability in place to draw on
in times of need.
•
IPENZ has major concerns about the form of investment analysis set out in the
draft Statement and questions its robustness. We propose an alternative model
that takes into account all aspects of the nation’s capital, measures the different
forms of capital equitably and makes investment decisions by looking at the
marginal value of further investment in each area.
•
New Zealand needs increased movement of researchers from the public sector
to the private sector to build business’ S&I capability. To assist with this the
Government needs to stop distorting the labour market by standardising postdoctorate stipends. We recommend stipends be set at market rates to attract
the right people in the right disciplines.
Page 1 of 8
GENERAL COMMENTS
We note the draft National Statement of Science Investment (“draft Statement”)
refers to the science system. We believe it would actually be better described as the
science and innovation (S&I) system as it describes more than just doing scientific
research. The innovation system can be defined as “the flow of technology and
information among people, enterprises and institutions and the essential actions
among these that are needed to turn an idea into a process, product or service in
the market”. The connectivity between all these activities and businesses is what will
make a difference to New Zealand.
IPENZ supports investment in S&I. We see investment in these areas as pivotal in
maintaining and enhancing New Zealand’s economic, social and environmental
performance. S&I has a key role in helping create breakthroughs and in supporting
existing industries, products and processes.
Nevertheless, the S&I system and its objectives must be seen within the context of
the overall vision for New Zealand. Thus, the public sector investment made in S&I
must be justifiable against other potential uses of the investment funding.
Government needs to be assured that an extra dollar spent in S&I is delivering
better value than investing that dollar in another public sector activity. Further, within
the S&I spend there must also be contestability between different types of
investment – again, the test is that the return on an extra dollar spent in one way is
higher than the value created if it was spent in any other way.
FORM OF INVESTMENT ANALYSIS MUST BE ROBUST
We have major concerns that the form of investment analysis proposed in the draft
Statement is insufficiently robust. We propose an alternative model below. Full
details of components of the model are presented in Appendix 1 of this submission.
AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL OF INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
New Zealand’s wealth (capital value), from which it derives its prosperity, is the sum
of its components:
•
The natural environmental capital
•
The built environment capital
•
The social capital
•
The institutional capital
•
The health capital
•
The business capital
•
The human capital
•
The intellectual capital
Each of these forms of capital is subject to depreciation and can be restored or
enhanced in some way. In the case of natural environmental capital, for example,
depreciation can occur through non-point pollution while the capital can be restored
through remedial actions or enhanced through affirmative actions, both of which are
informed by S&I. More discussion of these capitals is presented in Appendix 1.
Investment analysis needs to acknowledge and assess each of these forms of
capital. To enable this, the Government needs to devise a means to measure the
forms of capital equitably, so that realistic comparators can be made between
Page 2 of 8
different forms of investment. We note this is already done in some agencies – the
NZ Transport Agency being one example. However, to our knowledge, such an
approach has not yet been widely developed in New Zealand or applied in the S&I
sector.
In our view, deciding the right proportions of the total spend between competing
areas should be undertaken by looking at the marginal value of further investment in
each area. We thus recommend the replacement of the evaluation model set out on
pages 26-29 of the draft Statement with a model based on contestability that
recognises the various forms of capital presented above.
We acknowledge that in the short term it may not be possible to evaluate the relative
value of investments across all the forms of capital. However, adoption of the model
will provide helpful insights and lead to more meaningful performance indicators,
and more robust decisions about the relative value of different forms of investment.
This in turn will provide clarity on how performance is measured and compared to
the universities, Crown Research Institutes and other research providers.
We note that the percentage of teachers with science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) qualifications is proposed as an indicator in the draft Strategy.
The approach above suggests the need to use a proxy that more directly measures
the outcome of the work of STEM teachers. If the input of teachers was used as a
proxy then the measure would need to consider both the quantum and quality of
STEM teachers. Other possible proxies include degree completions in STEM
subjects, inward permanent and long-term migration of science and engineering
professionals, and adult scientific literacy.
Ideally, measures will focus on direct measurement of the “capital value” and not be
based on measurement of inputs as per the teacher example above. It is also
important the choice of measures does not create perverse incentives. For example,
international experience is that the value of intellectual capital is maximised if any
decision to seek formal protection rather than maintain confidential know-how is not
made prematurely. Using protected intellectual property as a formal measure is
likely to lead to inadvertent loss of intellectual capital as researchers rush to patent
rather than be guided by a committed commercial partner on whether and when to
formalise protection. Fonterra illustrates this point – like most large technologybased companies it relies heavily on confidential know-how.
Government’s Role in Supporting Capital
With the above alternative model and forms of capital in mind, it is clear that the
Government has a role in supporting or enhancing a number of these forms of
capitals. Outside the obligatory such as putting in place institutional arrangements
that create the institutional capital, the more discretionary roles of government are
generally to:
•
Provide a base level of human capital development through the compulsory
education sector
•
Incentivise investment by New Zealanders in higher, post-compulsory education
•
Create an environment, and provide sufficient incentives, such that the business
capital in the nation grows sufficiently fast to lift overall economic prosperity
•
Provide a public system which has the capability to fulfil the roles the private
sector cannot reasonably be expected to perform – in particular ensuring
against the depreciation (degradation) of natural environment and social capital,
and the minimisation of the health liability
Page 3 of 8
•
Be the ultimate insurer against black swan events and natural catastrophes.
Shifting to the specific S&I roles, the Government’s role encompasses:
•
Maintaining a broad-based research capability against future black swan
events. It can be argued that the Performance Based Research Fund does this
as it ensures a diverse range of good quality researchers are available, as does
the Crown Research Institute core funding.
•
Undertaking research against disastrous capital loss events in areas where
hazards are known to exist. The two largest capital loss events in New
Zealand’s history have been weather-tightness and the Canterbury
earthquakes, each worth about $30 billion. PSA (bacterial vine disease) in
kiwifruit was much smaller in scale, but also led to the destruction of capital.
There is a public role to undertake S&I to increase national resilience to, and
minimise the impacts of, such capital loss events. As an aside, we note that
almost all research in these areas has been directed to understanding hazards,
with little to mitigation. Whether robust economic analysis would support the
present split is doubtful.
•
Making a contribution to international knowledge in a way which fosters the
ability of our S&I institutions to attract and retain world-class researchers
•
Undertaking research the business sector cannot reasonably be expected to
perform to build business capital. This and the previous bullet point are arguably
served through mechanisms such as Centres of Research Excellence and the
Marsden Fund.
•
Facilitating mission-led research to foster the natural environment capital
•
Facilitating S&I to reduce the health liability such as research supported by the
Health Research Council
•
Facilitating or incentivising the undertaking of S&I largely funded by business
beneficiaries to build business capital. This S&I includes research associated
with:
•
o
Renewable resource capital – including farming, forestry and fisheries
o
Industrial and service sector capital – including manufacturing, information
and communication technology and food processing
o
Non-renewable resource capital, through improving the efficacy and
reducing the impacts of extraction.
Creating a potential workforce suitable to take up S&I employment roles in both
the public and private sectors.
Business’ Role in Supporting Capital
The private sector also contributes to capital. For example, it builds business capital
by being a fast-follower adopter of new technology, developing its own new
confidential know-how and lifting the skills of its workforce.
Page 4 of 8
WORKFORCE ISSUES NEED ADDRESSING
In our view, a major weakness in the present S&I system is the way it fails to
address workforce issues.
If New Zealand’s S&I sector’s profile matched the OECD mean, then the private
sector would contribute two-thirds of the investment, with the public sector
contributing the other third – and the employment of R&D workers would roughly
reflect this split.
Much of business’ research is mission-critical and business is more likely to want to
stay in direct control and undertake this research itself. Where a company
outsources research to a university or Crown Research Institute, it is likely to be
seeking either a key individual or the work is speculative – low cost, high gain but
high risk research. The ability for business to do this is currently limited by the
number of researchers willing to move permanently to the private sector.
New Zealand needs Increased Transfer of Researchers to the Private Sector
An unintended consequence of the measures on Crown Research Institutes and
universities is that they retain their key staff, rather than transferring that capability to
the private sector. New Zealand Inc. can be an inadvertent loser of this. New
Zealand needs to ensure good flow of researchers from the public sector into the
private sector to increase business’ S&I capability, thereby increasing business’
interest and ability to capitalise on and fund future S&I. A higher incentive for the
transfer of research personnel would then open up the places for new entrants to
the permanent S&I workforce.
Stipends need to be set at Market Rates
The dominance of the public sector as the primary employer of research workers
has another impact. Government has applied relative standardisation of
remuneration of researchers across the disciplines, rather than allowing the market
to determine the fair remuneration of research workers in different disciplines. This
has distorted the labour market.
In a discipline with strong private sector employment prospects, few graduates will
go on to post-graduate study unless the stipend matches the salary available. In a
discipline with graduate oversupply a post-graduate stipend looks attractive
compared to the unemployment benefit, so many post-graduate enrolments are
likely to occur. This situation leads to a surfeit of post-graduates completing without
strong employment prospects. They then demand post-doctorate places. These
researchers are then unable to obtain permanent jobs and move from one postdoctorate place to the next, suffering morale issues, and the inability to advance
their own lives and prospects.
In addition, it is common practice for stipends to be set at the same level as the
remuneration of teaching staff. This further distorts the labour market and provides
little incentive for well-qualified individuals to take up teaching roles – robbing
students of these individuals’ knowledge.
Similarly, in the education sector, the relative standardisation of remuneration
results in distortion. Those attracted to teaching are more likely to come from
specialisms where the number of graduates exceeds private sector roles. Graduates
in disciplines where supply of graduates does not meet private sector demand (such
as engineering) are less likely to contemplate a career in education. As a
consequence, few engineers become teachers and it is likely that science, maths,
Page 5 of 8
technology and information and communication technology are relatively poorly
delivered in schools.
We are not against post-doctoral fellowships, but we are against standardisation of
stipends. Stipends should be set at market rates to attract and further develop
people in the right disciplines to meet the long term S&I employment needs of the
nation.
CONTESTABILITY BETWEEN BUSINESS-LED, MISSION-LED AND INVESTIGATOR-LED
RESEARCH
This is often a topic of great debate with strong views expressed. In our view, the
model we propose above is the way to decide the relativity, i.e. where the greatest
gains in value from adding a new dollar are likely to be achieved. We believe the
debate needs to move away from doing “this or that” to a debate about deciding the
balance of investment in a rigorous manner.
Our primary concern is that high priority needs to be given to building business S&I
capability. We stress that building business S&I capability is better achieved by
developing private sector capability that draws in the public sector expertise as
needed (market pull) than by the public sector doing research to transfer to the
private sector (technology push).
We know that as business builds capability the public sector can proportionally be
morphed more to investigator-led and mission-led research.
We agree that a level of contestability for funds brings the benefits of market theory
to bear and selects for quality, but only so long as the quality measurement system
is sound, robust and fair. We have concerns that the quality of decision making, and
the tools applied, especially voluntary peer review, may lack sufficient robustness
which leads to inconsistent decision making.
CONSOLIDATE THE SYSTEM RATHER THAN ADD MORE LAYERS AND COMPLEXITY
We note the Government has created several funding stream entities recently. We
believe New Zealand is ill-served by adding new schemes. Rather, good quality
analysis through a rigorous methodology should be applied to shift funding in a
progressive way that is not disruptive to the businesses of providers such as Crown
Research Institutes and universities.
We believe there is too much overlapping governance between universities, Crown
Research Institutes, Centres of Research Excellence, and the National Science
Challenges. Some of the investments are quite small relative to the complexity of
the governance arrangements to manage their use. We believe there is an
opportunity to reduce overhead costs of often relatively informal institutions created
by the design of the S&I delivery system.
AVOID PICKING WINNERS
We agree with comments in the draft Statement that New Zealand’s issue is in
getting the right balance and allocation of resources across a range of important
objectives. We note that due to our country’s size and isolation, decisions are often
made to prioritise certain research.
In a small country we simply cannot resource S&I teams in every discipline and subdiscipline. We need to identify areas where analysis shows yields are likely to be
relatively higher and focus on these. We believe the Government should not be
Page 6 of 8
involved at a detailed level of picking winners, rather it should be responsible for
setting the right policy levers to achieve the desired outcomes.
We are also cautious about driving collaboration as a necessary condition of gaining
investment. Collaboration can be good but it should occur because it is an effective
way to make progress in a market where there is a level of contestability. Forced
collaboration plays into the hands of the large dominant players and tends to lead to
complex governance arrangements on which we have commented above.
NEW ZEALAND NEEDS BROAD-BASED RESEARCH CAPABILITY
As set out earlier, from a national security perspective, we need a broad-based
research capability in place across all disciplines likely to impact economic,
environmental, health or social outcomes. This will ensure we have the relevant
expertise on hand in times of urgent need. Generally, that broad base is stored in
universities (funded via the Performance Based Research Fund and Vote:
Education more generally) and Crown Research Institutes (funded via core funding
as a last resort if competitive funding is not achieved).
DO NOT TREAT THE BIOLOGICAL SECTOR AS SPECIAL
IPENZ believes we need to avoid treating the biological sector as special compared
to other areas of business capital creation. The objective in all cases is to maximise
private spend by using public funds as a catalyst.
The situation where a major economic sector (wool) opted out of contributing via a
levy to research, with many having the expectation the public sector would be
compelled to come to the rescue, is a dangerous precedent.
The appropriate share of investment for the biological sector should emerge from
rigorous analysis of the marginal value of increased spend between competing
priorities, not from rewarding an historically well-organised advocacy group.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to make this submission and are able to provide
further clarification if required.
For more information, please contact:
Tracey Ayre, Policy Advisor, IPENZ
Email
PO Box 12241, Wellington 6144
Page 7 of 8
APPENDIX 1
AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL OF INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
New Zealand’s wealth (capital value), from which it derives its prosperity, is the sum
of its components:
•
The natural environmental capital, which like any capital asset is subject to
depreciation such as through non-point pollution. This capital value can be
restored through remedial actions or enhanced through affirmative actions, both
of which are informed by S&I.
•
The built environment capital which includes the buildings plus all infrastructure.
Again there is depreciation and the need for investment to maintain this capital.
It can also increase through investment such as the building of roads, with the
value achieved being increased efficiency of the movement of goods and
services in the economy.
•
The social capital which includes the value of our culture and heritage
•
The institutional capital which includes the quality of our public institutions and
the quality of regulation. Some of this capital can be a deadweight liability –
poor regulation is one example. S&I can identify how to reduce the liability of
this capital.
•
The health capital – the quality of our people’s health. This capital is actually a
liability as significant ongoing investment is needed to maintain or enhance the
health status of the nation. S&I has a significant role to manage the extent of
the health liability of a nation.
•
The business capital in three forms:
o
Renewable resource capital, which is the sum of the cultivated land, fish in
the ocean and other renewable resources. Investment is needed to
maintain the quality of the capital asset, but its value can also be enhanced
through investment in S&I.
o
The industrial and service sector capital, which is the sum of all the plant
and machinery and all the know-how that underpins our private sector
businesses
o
The non-renewable resource capital, which comprises the energy
resources and minerals in particular. S&I can make this capital more
accessible.
•
The human capital – the quality of our educated people. Investment in
education increases this capital while immigration can positively or negatively
affect it, depending on policy settings.
•
The intellectual capital – the value of all our accumulated knowledge. Formal
intellectual property is a small part of this capital, which embodies all the knowhow of New Zealanders.
Page 8 of 8
Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024
Submission from SCENZ IChemE in NZ*
(*Society of Chemical Engineers in New Zealand - Institution of Chemical Engineers in NZ)
[https://www.icheme.org/communities/countries/new_zealand/about_us.aspx]
The SCENZ-IChemE in NZ welcomes this opportunity to have input into the National
Statement of Science Investment. Below is the collated response from our National Board,
in particular AP Ken Morison of Canterbury (Board Member), Dr Becky MacDonald of Beca
(Canterbury rep) and Dr David Pearce of Fonterra (Deputy Chair).
Prof Brent Young of Auckland (Chair)
The document is focussed on “science”. This term can be used with a narrow or broad
interpretation so it would be useful for the document to more clearly define the term
“science”. Do MBIE intend to include engineering, political science, psychology, social
science, technology, etc.?
It is pleasing to see the acknowledgement on page 10 that a key reason to invest in
“science” is to ensure we have the skills in our workforce to become an innovation-led
economy.
The key priorities listed on page 8 look good. What will success look like and how will we
know when we are there?
The development of intellectual independence through PhD programmes is very valuable.
Not only are the scientific skills important, but the confidence to be able to tackle difficult
problems is often the most significant outcome of postgraduate science research.
On page 11 it states that the system should make the “optimal” use of funding. One must
be careful not to put too much effort into identifying a true “optimum” as none is likely to
exist.
While focussing on science that is critical to the domestic context (page 11) our researchers
must be well exposed to international science. Often answers are not found by
concentrating on a single problem.
In the list “what does it mean for NZ” we don’t see any mention of training/education here:
a. Perhaps more broadly, how do the science & engineering degree
programmes fit /feed into this framework?
b. What does the Government see as the role of Professional bodies (IChemE
NZ, IPENZ etc.)?
c. How do we, as protectors of the standards, interact with the TEC to influence
the direction/type/scale of training?
Investment is split into 3 parts; investigator led, mission led, and industry led (page 12). So
why the multitude of different funds (pages 14 and 15). Why not just have 3 funds with
different parts to them? There could be more clarity on how these 3 parts are expected to
feed into each other.
On page 13 some of the roles of industry are:
a. to provide the commercially relevant framework for the Research (target
setting)
b. be an employer of first resort for the people who come from these
programmes
c. be a provider of commercialisation routes for the R&D (at scale)
d. be nice to see this reflected in this document
The table on page 18 seems to show that Government investment is decreasing over the
next 10 years. Why are the figures in the table not inflation adjusted?
Industrial Linkages
We certainly need investment in projects of high relevance to current and emerging
industry sectors (page 17) though we must be careful to not only concentrate on specific
problems of immediate importance to current and emerging industry. Innovations will come
from developing deeper understanding of the science that supports industry.
NZ industry is made up of many small to medium size companies with a very low tolerance
for risk. NZ industry want immediate outcomes for the R&D dollar. Many companies barely
know what they are doing this time next year and have no desire or ability to plan their R&D
spend beyond a few months. We must be careful that we do not rely on such companies to
lead “industry led” research.
The large proportion of our science activity in CRIs (page 24) can only be supported if there
are very strong links with industry. Anecdotes suggest that this is not uniform within NZ.
Science activity in universities has the advantage that a large number of the graduates move
to industry.
Page 25: There is an opportunity to provide funding to facilitate knowledge exchange with
industry through selected secondments (needs to be bi-directional).
a. Can we set up something like Fulbright/James Cook fellowships to support
this?
b. An IChemE role here?
The use of the term “impact” (page 26) is potentially unwise. For most university
researchers the term immediately equates to the impact factor of journals, something
which is quite unrelated to true impact. The measurement of “impact” can be very difficult.
The measure of performance is more specific on page 27 with explicit mention of NZ’s lower
achievement of publications in top-cited publications. Good industrial work is much less
likely to be published in such journals. It’s our experience that NZ industry will steer away
from published research, as they can’t get the “competitive edge” they want. Publications
and other information sharing compromises industry linkages
The level of direct support from industry to universities is low in NZ. In the USA and UK
there seems to be more industrial funding without very specific business outcomes, but
rather which supports fundamental science and skill development in the area of expertise of
the industry. It is likely that taxation incentives encourage this. This could be to do with the
size of some individual companies in these countries, compared with the generally SME
dominance in NZ.
The current funding models do not provide well for pre-commercial industry-focused
research to develop ideas to be ready for industry. With the additional effects of PBRF
drivers (below), many ideas do not proceed.
There is a lot on the funding mechanisms (MBIE, PGP, CRI etc.,) in the document. What we
do not see here (or might have missed) is a sense of the direction we are heading per
industry (a sense of vision even). Do we need more food, forestry, or IT, and what level?
Where does the ministry see us in 10-15 years, what sort of industries will we have? What
new education may be required to support this vision? There is a lot of talk about moving up
the value chain away from commodities. Needs to be a piece here that delineates the
responsibility of Government & Industry here, i.e. who needs to see that this happens? How
does the Government support industry in this endeavour? Should the Government support
industry?
It would be nice to see some recognition of cross discipline collaboration and Government
calling this out. I know that it is up to the respective organisations to make sure that this
happens – but as we know the innovations are at the interfaces.
The influence of PBRF.
The current implementation of PBRF creates drivers that act against many of the aims stated
here. It is not necessary in the academic interest of university researchers to have research
with industry (page 25) as this reduces the potential for high “impact factor” publications.
Even if publication of research is permitted, it tends to be less esoteric and gets published in
more applied journals which in engineering tend to have lower impact factors. The
perception is that applied research is less highly regarded by PBRF panels.
Close work on industrially relevant work makes publication difficult. Academic colleagues
have publications withheld from submission because of the intellectual property involved.
In many cases there is no patent as the choice has been made to keep the technology as a
trade secret. Therefore publication might not be possible for many years, if ever.
The statement (page 33) that PBRF will also support technology and knowledge transfer to
NZ businesses is not currently true. If changes are to occur they need to be communicated
with the academic community very soon as we are well into the next period of PBRF
assessment.
The concept of “Enabling Technologies” (page 45) should be embedded in PBRF. It is not
currently.
The recognition of research income as part of the PBRF formula seems to be biased to the
lead institute and hence collaboration is discouraged.
The draft should be clearing in the statement “We also propose to consider the role of
‘contest’ ...” (page 47). There seems to be an underlying assumption that is not clear to
readers.
Health Research Funding
Who could ever object to health research funding? By its very nature, most of it is globally
applicable and therefore offers NZ little advantage. The health of New Zealander’s might be
better improved by increasing the profitability of our industry.
The Pre-Seed Accelerator Fund (page 56) is an excellent scheme and needs to continue.
Marsden Fund
The Marsden fund has been extended to include engineering, but experience (as a panel
member and from viewing success) has been that most is scientific research, rather than
engineering research. Even though the Marsden fund was set up for science, it does little to
encourage industrial relevant research. Indeed the perception is that proposed research
should not be seen to too relevant.
But it appears to do a good job of funding “investigator led” research.
CRI’s
Collaborations seem to be the key thing. So why is there so much duplication of skills and
capabilities within the CRI’s?
Funding
We have National Science Challenges, Sector Specific funds, PGP, and Business R&D. These
feel like variations on a theme. Perhaps fewer flexible funds might be appropriate.
Callaghan Innovation
While Callaghan Innovation is still developing it is not yet clear that they can successfully
lead commercialisation.
Minor matters
Can excellent science not be of the highest quality? (Page 16)
Some of the acronyms could and should be avoided. E.g., BERD, BGA, GBAORD, CI, SCI.
What is the TLA PPP and what is PISA? Someone recently asked one of us what “R&D”
stood for; no acronyms are universal
The chart on page 19 describing Government engagement is confusing.
Having CORE’s and then core funding for the CRI is also confusing!
NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT DRAFT Response from Rutherford Discovery Fellowship recipients (2010-2013) We thank MBIE and the Minister for the opportunity to comment on plans for future
investment in Science. This is a joint response written and co-signed by 97.5% of New Zealand’s Rutherford
Discovery Fellows. We are a group of internationally recognised early- to mid-career
researchers who have been selected for our innovative approaches to research across the
sciences and the humanities. We work in diverse fields, spanning physical, engineering,
information and communications technology, medical, molecular and environmental research
through to social sciences, law and the humanities. We are based across a wide cross-section
of New Zealand’s Universities and Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), and are engaged in
basic, applied and near-to-market research. All of us have directly benefitted from the
investments and changes that the Government has been making to the Science sector. As a
result of the Rutherford Discovery Fellowship, we have chosen to return to, or to stay in,
New Zealand. We agree strongly with the Government’s message in the draft National Statement of Science
Investment (the “Draft Statement”), that greater investment in science is critical for the future
prosperity of New Zealand. This document signals a step in the right direction for the future
prosperity of our nation. There are, however, three key issues that we unanimously agree are not adequately addressed
in the Draft Statement and require urgent attention: 1. Funding for science and research in New Zealand must, as a matter of urgency, be
increased until it is comparable to science investment in other small advanced economies
(as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP). 2. Greater expenditure on investigator-led fundinga is required if New Zealand is to develop
into a strong and prosperous advanced economy. This must happen in the short term. 3. New Zealand urgently requires postdoctoral funding on par with other small advanced
economies. We are pleased that the Draft Statement raises all of these matters, and heartened that some
steps have already been taken to address them. However, the benefits of investing in these
key areas are not fully articulated in the document. Nor are clear commitments to increasing
investment in them made. This is of significant concern – without substantial investment in
these key areas, the full economic benefit of a thriving research and innovation sector in New
Zealand may never be realised. a
Investigator-led science is defined on p12 of the Draft National Statement of Science Investment
2014-2024 as being “undertaken to acquire new knowledge but its direction is suggested by the
scientists themselves”
1 1. Funding levels need to be comparable to the investments made by other small
advanced economies The Draft Statement very explicitly acknowledges that, at 0.56% of GDP, our current
Government investment in science research and development (R&D) lags behind that of the
small advanced economies of Denmark, Singapore, Ireland, Finland and Israel. We applaud the open manner in which this point is made. However, by comparing ourselves
only with these countries, our status as an extreme outlier is obscured. The figure below,
published in Science, plots the number of scientists and engineers against % GDP for 2011.
This shows that we are among the few global anomalies when it comes to R&D investment,
and that we would be hard-pressed to convince others of our status as a small advanced
economy. We have a comparable number of scientists and engineers to other developed
nations, yet we spend far less as a proportion of GDP. With three exceptions, all countries
adhere to the strong relationship between number of scientists/engineers and R&D
expenditure. Of the other two outliers, Greece and Israel, the Draft Statement clearly signals
we do not wish to emulate Greece. Source: Press, WH (2013) What’s so special about science (and how much should we spend
on it?) Science 342:817-822. New Zealand R&D figure includes both Government and
Industry sources. Circle size indicates total R&D spending by individual nations. The graph makes it clear that we do not have too many scientists and engineers. We simply
do not fund them in line with the rest of the world. This may partly explain the statistics in
2 the draft report, which indicate that New Zealand scientists publish at comparable levels to
other nations, but our publications tend to have less impact—our scientists have to make do
with far fewer resources. Without investment, the greatest risk is that the number and quality
of scientists and engineers will decline with time, moving our nation further from its
aspirational goals. The risk is that New Zealand will rapidly lose, not attract, top talent. Recommendation 1 We therefore make an unapologetic call for a substantial and concrete commitment that: • Government R&D investment will grow to 1.5% of GDP per capita by 2024; and • Year-to-year funding levels will reflect New Zealand’s annual GDP growth. Increasing R&D expenditure will make New Zealand a far more desirable destination for the
internationally mobile science and engineering workforce. We applaud the Government’s
intention to increase R&D investment to 0.8% but it falls significantly short of what is
needed. A commitment of at least 2.5% (combined Government and industry sources) is
required if we are to build New Zealand into a small advanced economy. As the Draft
Statement recognises, increased future R&D funding will also need to come from the private
sector, but that requires initial Government investment to create a healthy science sector. At
the moment, there is not even a commitment to increase Government funding to a modest 1%
R&D investment rate. Furthermore, the document fails to articulate the primary benefits of
increasing investigator-led basic research funding and investing in He Tangata—creating the
talented young scientists of the future and retaining internationally competitive mid-career
researchers in New Zealand. 2. Investigator-led funding is critical for developing a strong and prosperous advanced
economy.
We share the Minister’s view, that, “High-quality science and innovation can have a
transformational effect on a nation” (p. 4 of the Draft Statement). In light of that, we strongly
believe that the benefits of contestable, investigator-led funding must be fully recognised.
According to the Draft Statement, the primary way in which investigator-led research
benefits economies is by creating ill-defined ‘knowledge spillovers’ (p. 12). But this fails to
appreciate the essential role that strong university environments play as drivers of successful
Innovation Districts.b To be more specific, here are three essential benefits of investigator-led funding that must be
recognised as part of future science investment: A.
The capacity to produce the best educational environments Whether they work in industry, CRIs or universities, New Zealand-trained researchers get
their education from the tertiary sector. Advanced postgraduate training teaches people to
undertake questions-driven research. In order to be an effective researcher, one must be able
to propose new questions, to find innovative new routes to address these questions, and to
develop the expertise needed to undertake the research. In short, innovation is the product of
b Katz & Wagner, “The Rise of Innovation Districts”. Brookings, May 2014, p11
(http://www.brookings.edu/about/programs/metro/innovation-districts). 3 intellectual freedom. The gap between New Zealand and other small advanced nations in
terms of quality of research outputs will widen if basic and basic-applied research
environments cannot routinely undertake funded, high-impact international research. These
educational environments train the minds that will address the National Science Challenges
and find the new scientific applications that will drive the economy, and advance positive
social reforms. B.
The reputational and economic benefits from doing international research To attract and retain the best scientists and postgraduate students, we must respond to the
education market. This market is affected by global league tables and New Zealand
universities—in contrast to those of other small advanced nations—are slipping down these
tables. It is not surprising, then, that New Zealand institutions are attracting fewer and fewer
international students.c Good investigator-led research in the nation’s universities impacts
directly on the $2.6 billion education sector by making our institutions more attractive.d
Conversely, if poor funding leads to declining institutional reputations, the university sector
will shrink. This is bad for the education sector and for industry—weaker training of
postgraduate researchers would have negative ramifications for industry, applied science, and
society. High-impact research (basic or applied) is essential for building New Zealand’s
credibility as a knowledge and innovation-based economy. Yet, as a nation, we currently fail
to adequately support our top researchers. C.
The capacity for new research to lead to new, unimagined applications In innovative economies, companies are spun out of the best basic research environments.e
Disruptive innovations emerge from beyond the horizon of what is conceivable in applied or
industry-led environments. They require a critical mass of the best and brightest scientists
working on the hardest problems. The Draft Statement’s aim of improving the ability of
applied or industry-led environments to contribute to the economy is good for New Zealand,
but this is only part of the picture. Successful research environments overseas strongly rely
on basic research to generate new and innovative businesses—that is precisely why
innovation hubs are so often linked to universities.f
Finally, it is critical for New Zealand to maintain and develop expertise beyond current
Government portfolios.g This is essential if we are to provide the necessary expert advice and
scientific insight to respond rapidly to unexpected challenges, and to translate and apply the
results of emerging research conducted elsewhere. This is an important but often underrecognised contribution of fundamental research to Government obligations, and is necessary
c
Fewer international students are choosing NZ:
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/tertiary education/145981 Fig. 18, 27. d
“The Economic Impact of International Education 2012/13”; the university sector provides the
greatest value, at 34.7% of total sector value. http://www.enz.govt.nz/markets-research/generalresearch/the-economic-impact-of-international-education-2012-13. e
“Intellectual eminence” is a key driver of the generation of spin-out companies; Di Gregorio & Shane
(2013) “Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?” Research Policy 32:209227. f
Katz & Wagner, 2014; Henry Etzkowitz, The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation
in Action, Routledge 2008. g
Current funding mechanisms are already heavily skewed towards mission- and industry-led science.
In contrast, the Marsden Fund represents less than 10% of ‘contestable’ funds, NSSI Draft p.14.
4 both for gauging impacts on New Zealand, and to ensure that New Zealand can take
advantage of new, unexpected opportunities.
Recommendation 2 If we are to emulate the successes of other advanced small nations, we must make the
connection between basic research and innovation. Increasing Marsden funding in 2013 was
a step in the right direction but it needs to continue. The Marsden Fund is the main sponsor
for investigator-led basic research in New Zealand. It is well conceived but woefully underfunded—current success rates are below 10%.h With few funding alternatives, many first
rate research projects (i.e. in the top 20% of applicants) are left unfunded, time that could
have been spent on research is lost to futile grant-writing,i or, worse still, the research is
carried out overseas and our intellectual property is lost offshore. We propose that future
strategic investment includes a commitment to turn the Marsden Fund into a powerful
generator of innovation. We would like to see application success rates rise to 20%, in line
with other, similar funds overseas.j At 2013 levels, this would entail an increase to $152.2
million.k 3. New Zealand urgently requires postdoctoral funding on par with other small
advanced economies We are pleased that there is some dedicated Government funding for postdoctoral fellows
through the Rutherford Foundation Trust. However, this is extremely limited (it currently
funds only five positions per year) which creates major problems surrounding the
opportunities for postdoctoral research in New Zealand. There is widespread agreement that
there are too few opportunities for postdoctoral scientists in New Zealand. We wish to
highlight two major problems that result. A. New Zealanders and New Zealand-trained foreign PhD students are pushed overseas at the
most productive point in their careers The effect of the severe bottleneck at the postdoctoral stage in the careers of young scientists
is that we are inadvertently creating a place where talent has to leave. Given the outwardlooking nature of many New Zealanders, a period spent overseas can be valuable. However
this is not universally true. For many PhD graduates from cutting-edge research groups, it
makes better sense to stay in New Zealand and consolidate their skills. If they do this, they
contribute to the New Zealand research environment just as they become most useful. h
Last year, 40 of 330 Fast Start applications were funded (12.1%), and 69 of 827 Standard
applications (8.3%). Increasing success rates to 20% across the board would mean funding 66 Fast
Starts and 165 Standards. i
The reduction of successfully funded NIH grants in the US from 30% to 16.8%
(http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2014/01/10/fy2013-by-the-numbers/) has been linked to the damaging
effects of hypercompetition by Alberts et al. (2014) Rescuing US biomedical research from its
systemic flaws. PNAS 111:5773-6; a recent calculation of the time spent in 2012 in Australia on grant
writing indicates that, with success rates of 20.5%, the equivalent of four centuries of effort was lost
(Herbert et al. 2013 “Funding: Australia’s grant system wastes time”. Nature 495: 314). j
Success rates for Australian Research Council Discovery grants are on the order of 20%
(http://arc.gov.au/ncgp/dp/dp_outcomes.htm). k
Average Marsden Fast-Start grant in 2013 was $345,000 (including GST). The average Standard
grant in 2013 was $782,754 (incl. GST). Therefore, total funding required to lift success rates to 20%,
based on 2013 numbers, is $152.2M (incl. GST). 5 For New Zealand-trained foreign scientists looking to stay, or for international PhDs looking
to settle, the dearth of postdoctoral funding for domestic or incoming scientists is a major
problem. Postdoctoral research often coincides with other major personal milestones like
getting married and starting a family. This makes it more likely that talented New Zealand
and New Zealand-trained postdocs will settle offshore, particularly if they remember a NZ
science system that fails to support top researchers. Failure to address this issue is a major
shortcoming of the current Draft Statement.
B. New Zealand research teams are overly reliant on postgraduate students Lack of dedicated postdoctoral funding also means that most New Zealand research teams,
which are small, investigator-led teams, suffer acutely from talent loss. Because few students
are able to secure funding for postdoctoral research, New Zealand scientists have to run
research groups with scientists-in-training. It is routine for labs in other parts of the world to
have one or two experienced postdoctoral scientists playing a senior role in driving research
and providing coalface expertise to postgraduate students. Strong postdoctoral support is
therefore essential for building research depth, allowing New Zealand science environments
to capitalise on that depth, and creating an ecosystem where established early-career
scientists can begin to drive their own research and develop their career, be it academic,
applied or translational. It should also be noted that although the impact of the postdoctoral funding void is most
keenly felt in academic and applied science, it also impacts on industry. Scientists with five
to six years of advanced training are better placed than recent PhD graduates to recognise
opportunities to develop and spin-out advanced technologies.
Finally, the postdoctoral period is the ‘make-or-break’ time in a researcher’s career. As a
result, postdoctoral students are usually highly productive and hardworking. Savvy
institutions can capitalise on this to increase their productivity. The fact that many science
environments overseas are reducing their investment creates a real opportunity for New
Zealand to recruit top international and expatriate postdoctoral scientists to our shores. Recommendation 3 Government funding for postdocs should be radically increased. We believe that an increase
from the current five (funded by the Rutherford Trust) to 100+ new postdocs (0-5 years postPhD) per annum would transform research quality, depth and diversity in the way the
Minister desires. It would bring NZ into line with the nearly 400 postdoctoral fellowships
available in Australia for researchers at this early career stagel and provide a competitive foil
to the tendency for young, productive researchers to leave New Zealand and never return. l
Through the Discovery Early Career Researcher Awards, 200 postdoctoral positions are available
annually (0-5 years post PhD) (http://arc.gov.au/ncgp/decra.htm), and similar numbers of fellowships
are available through National Health and Medical Research Council
(http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/outcomes-funding-rounds) 6 Rutherford Fellowship scheme Finally, we think it is appropriate and timely to provide feedback on the Rutherford
Discovery Fellowship scheme, from which we are all benefitting. The initial scheme, as run
in 2010 and 2011, was a fantastic initiative as it provided a strong incentive for talented New
Zealand scientists to stay in or return to New Zealand. It also provided employment stability.
While we appreciate that external pressures necessitated an early review, we are not
convinced the majority of changes that have emerged from the prematurely initiated review
process are helpful for early- to mid-career scientists, nor for the science sector of New
Zealand. We agree that the original tier system was not necessary, and we welcome the
decision to allow both citizens and permanent residents to apply. However, we question the
decision to allow hosts not to employ Fellows at the end of their Fellowship. This creates
instability and uncertainty, may deter future overseas applicants from relocating, and risks
recipients being forced to leave New Zealand at the end of their contracts. We therefore
favour the introduction of a clear tenure-track requirement as part of the revised scheme.
Leading research providers in other advanced economies, including Sweden’s Karolinska
Institutet, Denmark’s University of Copenhagen and the University of Helsinki in Finlandm,
are now providing clear guidelines for tenure, modelled on the tenure-track system in the US.
Given the potential for the RDF scheme to be of value to tertiary providers, CRIs and the
development of science that could create spin-out companies, we favour evolution of the
scheme towards a tenure-track model with a clear path for successful Fellows to transition to
tenured academic or employed staff scientist positions. Currently there is no clear pathway,
even for those scientists who have been identified as New Zealand’s future research leaders. Summary It is our strong belief that a national research funding pipeline that provides for early to midcareer development of New Zealand-based scientists and researchers is critical to the goals
laid out in the National Statement of Science Investment document. There is an urgent need
for a coherent career funding programme that provides opportunities throughout the career
development of young researchers which can fully support internationally competitive
research groups based in New Zealand. To achieve this, there must be substantial support for
both junior postdoctoral researchers and early-mid career researchers (senior postdoctoral
fellows) to pave the way from PhD research into permanent positions as
lecturers/professors/staff scientists working in CRIs and industry. Such a funding pipeline
requires three key components: 1. A substantial postdoctoral fellowship scheme, with dedicated funding for 100+ new
postdocs each year, covering 0-5 years post-PhD.
2. A tenure-track Rutherford Discovery Fellowship, funding 10-25 new 5-year fellows
each year, covering 3-10 years post-PhD.
3. An increase in investigator-led basic research funding, enabling the top 20% of
Marsden applications to be funded. m
Wald, “Structuring Academic Careers in Europe”. Science Careers, May 2008 (doi:
10.1126/science.caredit.a0800063); http://www.helsinki.fi/recruitment/tenuretrack.html;
http://employment.ku.dk/tenure-track/tenure-track-at-ucph/ 7 We welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other aspects of the Science ecosystem with
the Minister and representatives from the Ministry. We will hold our annual workshop on
27th November 2014, and we cordially invite both the Minister and MBIE to meet with us
during our workshop. Alternatively, one or two of our number could meet with officials to
discuss the suggestions in this document. Once again, we applaud the Government’s efforts to engage in the building of a small
advanced economy, and we sincerely believe that we can help create the conditions Sir Paul
Callaghan aspired to build, namely: ‘a place where talent wants to live’. Signed, Rutherford Discovery Fellowship Awardees 2010-2013 8 Full list of signatories: 1. Associate Professor Donna Rose Addis, The University of Auckland, RDF 2010. 2. Dr. Martin Allen, University of Canterbury, RDF 2012. 3. Dr. Barbara Anderson, Landcare Research, Dunedin, RDF 2012. 4. Associate Professor Quentin D. Atkinson, The University of Auckland, RDF 2011. 5. Associate Professor Nancy Bertler, Victoria University of Wellington, and GNS
Science, RDF 2011. 6. Dr. Ashton Bradley, University of Otago, RDF 2010. 7. Dr. Brendon Bradley, University of Canterbury, RDF 2013. 8. Associate Professor Murray P. Cox, Massey University, RDF 2010. 9. Professor Alexei Drummond, The University of Auckland, RDF 2010. 10. Dr. Peter Fineran, University of Otago, RDF 2011. 11. Dr. Paul Gardner, University of Canterbury, RDF 2010. 12. Dr. David Goldstone, The University of Auckland, RDF 2011. 13. Associate Professor Noam Greenberg, Victoria University of Wellington, RDF 2010. 14. Professor Jennifer Hay, University of Canterbury, RDF 2010. 15. Dr. Justin Hodgkiss, Victoria University of Wellington, RDF 2011. 16. Dr. Jessie Jacobsen, University of Auckland, RDF 2012. 17. Associate Professor Eric Le Ru, Victoria University of Wellington, RDF 2010. 18. Dr. Peter Mace, University of Otago, RDF 2012. 19. Dr. Dillon Mayhew, Victoria University of Wellington, RDF 2013. 20. Dr Rob McKay, Victoria University of Wellington, RDF 2013. 21. Dr. Clemency Montelle, University of Canterbury, RDF 2012. 22. Associate Professor Nicole Moreham, Victoria University of Wellington, RDF 2011. 23. Dr. Suresh Muthukumaraswamy, The University of Auckland, RDF 2013. 24. Associate Professor Shinichi Nakagawa, University of Otago, RDF 2012. 25. Dr. Suetonia Palmer, University of Otago Christchurch, RDF 2013. 26. Dr. Wayne M. Patrick, University of Otago, RDF 2011. 27. Associate Professor Anthony M. Poole, University of Canterbury, RDF 2011. 28. Dr. Craig Radford, The University of Auckland, RDF 2013. 29. Dr. Nicholas J. Rattenbury, The University of Auckland, RDF 2012. 30. Associate Professor John N.J. Reynolds, University of Otago, RDF 2010. 31. Dr. Nicholas Shears, The University of Auckland, RDF 2011. 32. Dr. Lara Shepherd, Te Papa Tongarewa, RDF 2012. 33. Dr. Jonathan Sperry, The University of Auckland, RDF 2013. 34. Dr. Elizabeth Stanley, Victoria University of Wellington, RDF 2013. 35. Dr. Daniel B. Stouffer, University of Canterbury, RDF 2013. 36. Professor Jason M. Tylianakis, University of Canterbury, and Imperial College
London, RDF 2010. 37. Dr. Angela Wanhalla, University of Otago, RDF 2013. 38. Dr. Geoff Willmott, The University of Auckland, RDF 2012. 39. Dr. Tim Woodfield, University of Otago Christchurch, RDF 2012. 9 The National Statement of Science Investment Feedback from the New Zealand Association of Scientists The New Zealand Association of Scientists (Inc.) P.O. Box 1874 Wellington 6140 New Zealand Dr Nicola Gaston 21 August 2014 This document was prepared on the basis of consultation with the scientific community, both current members of the Association and scientists who do not belong to the Association. We would like to thank them all for their input. Contents: I.
Introduction and Context II.
Major recommendations III.
Feedback on Overall Science Investment Outlook (Qs 1-­‐9) IV.
General Feedback on Direction (Qs 10-­‐18) V.
Structure of MBIE Sector-­‐Specific Research Funds (Qs 19-­‐27) 1 I.
Introduction and Context The National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) is of serious importance to the New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS). Our aims, as set down in the Rules of our Association, are: •
To secure the widest application of science for the welfare of society. •
To promote public discussion and participation in the resolution of scientific and technical issues of public concern that may affect the welfare of society. •
To uphold interchanges of scientific knowledge and discussion both nationally and internationally. •
To promote measures to eliminate discrimination in science on any grounds other than scientific merit. •
To encourage excellence in science, science education, and an awareness of social responsibility and ethics in science. •
To defend the right of scientists to work in a spirit of intellectual freedom, to pursue, express and defend the scientific truth as they see it. •
To defend the right of scientists to express themselves freely on the human, social or ecological value of projects, and to defend their right to withdraw from projects if their conscience so dictates. •
To combat all tendencies to limit scientific investigation or to suppress scientific discoveries, to expose pseudo-­‐scientific theories and claims, particularly where such are used as justification for social and financial ends or policies. •
To promote the use of expert scientific advice by official agencies on all matters involving the application of science and the institution of government, supported by research wherever necessary. •
To advance the status of scientists in the community and to secure for them those conditions of employment appropriate to their professional standing. •
To hold either alone or jointly with other bodies meetings and conferences promoting social awareness in matters of scientific concern, and to recognise excellence in scientific work and outstanding service to science in an appropriate manner. •
To do all such lawful things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above aims or any of them. The NZAS welcomes the draft National Statement of Science Investment as an important step towards transparency around government funding of scientific research, and towards evidence-­‐based policy making. It signals the start of an open conversation between policy makers and the science community on priorities for science investment in New Zealand. 2 II.
Major recommendations We provide ten key recommendations based on our answers to the questions asked by MBIE, which we address in full on the following pages. 1 Reinstate a nationally competitive postdoctoral funding scheme to support knowledge transfer and innovation. For example, this could be managed by RSNZ alongside the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships. Consider aligning incentives in PBRF, e.g. including postdoctoral training as a key indicator of research quality. 2 Increase (at least double) the size of the Marsden Fund. Currently, the Marsden Fund represents less than 5% of total investment. Contestable funds (both through Marsden and MBIE) are crucial for the development of new ideas and the competitiveness of NZ researchers on the international stage. Success rates must go up to lower transaction costs: this applies to both the Marsden Fund and other contestable funding. 3 Increase funds available to early stage targeted research (i.e. with reduced expectation for direct industry co-­‐funding) to enable connection and complementarity between the Marsden and MBIE funded programmes over time. 4 Support the use of evidence about the science sector to inform science policy. The NZAS has previously run NZ wide surveys on the state of science in NZ: we would welcome MBIE involvement and support of future surveys. Capture of appropriate demographic information, such as gender of PIs and career development information across the science sector, should also be instituted. 5 Simplify the present administrative model for health-­‐related National Science Challenges to a single independent administrative body covering all research mapped to these challenges funded by the HRC, NSC and MBIE. 6 Downsize the National Science Challenges, and institute an independent review of the entire NSC process, led by international science experts. This review should consider the opportunity cost of repurposing the allocated NSC funding into alternative existing science funding mechanisms within NZ such as the Marsden Fund, the Health Research Council, and the MBIE contestable round. 7 Amend the CRI Act to require that the boards of CRIs support the RSNZ code of ethics as a professional code of conduct for scientists, to mitigate issues of trust where scientific opinion may differ and scientists are expected to speak publicly. e.g. 6.1 (1): A member must endeavour to make the results of their work as widely available to the public as possible and to present those results in an honest, straightforward and unbiased manner 8 Work to develop a culture of collaboration between MBIE and other government agents responsible for managing investment in the science sector (e.g. TEC, other Ministries), to mitigate loss of institutional knowledge over time. 9 Work to develop a stronger culture of trust between funding providers (e.g. MBIE) and science practitioners, based on the value of transparency in allocating public money to institutions, scientists, and their individual projects. 10 Recognise that in order to achieve the above, the government should increase investment to (at least) match the OECD average. 3 III.
Feedback on Overall Science Investment Outlook Q1. Overall balance of investments What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In particular: a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why? b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why? c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-­‐, mission-­‐ and industry-­‐led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why? The structure of these questions reflects the diagram on p.14. This supposes that funds can be distinguished on the basis of two axes: •
a vertical axis covering disparate concepts – ‘institutional’ identifies input funds for research organisations and a Crown agency that are often allocated contestably, almost always involve forms of collaboration and certainly provide for infrastructure and other forms of support – ‘infrastructure’ picks out some funds that are vaguely connected to various notions of capability building – ‘collaborative’ identifies two modes of research operation ignoring the facts one is awarded after contest, that both involve intense internal contest and competition as well as collaboration and that both provide various sorts of infrastructure and capability development and support – ‘contestable’ separates funds awarded by different agents (MBIE, HRC, Marsden Committee, Callaghan, MPI) and hence, in a mixed fashion, by sector, based on ‘contest’ as a common general method of allocation while ignoring the fact that most of the projects funded involve competition, collaboration and capability building. •
a horizontal axis showing who has the main control over research projects – investigators, mission leaders or private-­‐sector entities. The inadequacy of this two-­‐way classification is illustrated throughout the draft statement. It is hard to address questions about balances by allocation mechanisms, organisational groupings or sectors, about how funds interface and about collaboration and other modes of carrying out research when the basic model offered is confused and when declarative statements about what MBIE perceives the balances to be are missing. Recommendation 8 addresses our concerns about the extent to which the NSSI demonstrates incomplete knowledge of the science sector and its complexity. Question a: balance of funding between organisations and contests 4 Given the presence of contest under all funding mechanisms, the widely differing range of scales of organisational funding and of size of contracts awarded through contest, and the different interests involved this question seems to be of doubtful value. NZAS recommends that MBIE direct its thinking towards: •
the match of organisational funding to the different business models that different classes of organisation operate under – blindness of the ‘purchase’ side of government policies to misalignments with government ‘ownership’ interests in the cases of CRIs and universities has long been a source of friction and instability in the science system •
the need for sufficient stability of base funding in research organisations and the research components of larger organisations such as universities for there to be reasonable career prospects for researchers and, in particular, those who are just beginning their careers •
the fact that the contest it refers to is simply that which occurs at the point of formation of research contracts with funding agencies. The much more significant facet of contestability in terms of ultimate impacts is the way in which decisions are made within the teams that carry out research and technology transfer. Question b: balance of funds between classes of organisations NZAS notes that each of the classes of organisation mentioned will consider that it should get more direct, or input funding. That aside, it is clear that different classes of organisation fill different roles in the research and innovation system: •
Tertiary-­‐sector organisations have a primary role in educating the future research workforce and a science-­‐literate public through the teaching of research-­‐active staff. This means they are best suited to carry out investigator-­‐led research and, because of their disciplinary diversity, to work across the spectrum of users (e.g. as the main locus for social science research) •
CRIs and independent research organisations (IROs) are configured to put together multidisciplinary teams in a small number of broad sectors. They fulfil a separate role to that of University research. •
CoREs, NSC, platforms and the like form another class of multi-­‐institutional organisation. They may fill niches, or act as balances on the overarching incentives of organisations, for example to enhance inter-­‐institutional collaboration. The question of balance between classes of organisations is obscured by the incomplete accounting for funding in the draft document: •
‘Commercial income’ from businesses, industry groups and central and local government agencies is an important source of funding for CRIs and to a lesser extent, universities. This should be accounted for as part of understanding the impact of government expenditure •
Tertiary-­‐sector organisations receive funds that support research over and above the amounts received through the PBRF. Additional funds – in 5 particular funds that go to support university research through TEC should be accounted for more explicitly: PhD student completion incentives are known to have a distortionary effect on the ability of the sector to afford postdoctoral positions, and therefore must be part of the picture. The centralized funding of PhD student completions is one reason why postdoctoral funding is not effectively done through institutions. (see recommendation 1.) Question c: balance of funding between investigator-­‐led, mission-­‐led and industry-­‐
led groupings The answers to this question are likely to reflect interests: •
Investigator-­‐led research best meets the interests of tertiary-­‐sector organisations and staff. Research-­‐competent tertiary-­‐sector organisations compete for domestic and international rankings and have interests in gaining access to investigator-­‐led funds. Their staff require access to these funds if they are to progress in their careers. •
CRIs and IROs are organised and managed so that they are equipped to carry out collaborative, multi-­‐disciplinary mission-­‐led research projects with sufficient basic science base to support their wider mission-­‐driven purpose. They are often less concerned about investigator-­‐led research funds, although investigator-­‐led funds still play a crucial role in career development and in the underpinning science in these organisations. •
User groups have interests in driving up levels of funding for user-­‐led (consistently misnamed as ‘industry-­‐led’ in the draft document) research funds. •
Early-­‐career researchers (ECRs) are a group with specific interests that are distinct from the institutions that they work for. They tend to benefit most from investigator-­‐led funds that build an internationally competitive c.v., but can also benefit from other funds where there are strict targets for the inclusion of ECRs. NZAS also considers that there is rarely a clear division between these categories of research. Work that starts out as purely investigator-­‐led research can progress over time all the way through to application and thus may acquire mission-­‐led and even user-­‐led elements. In a similar manner, mission-­‐led and even user-­‐led research may involve circuits back into investigator-­‐led research on particular aspects of a problem. The critical point is that MBIE should not be aiming to pigeon-­‐hole or constrain research by type under the three labels. In general it should be aiming to fund research that is fit for purpose and then trusting and incentivising whatever grouping is involved to achieve outcomes. However, there is data available that can be used to critique the current balance. Figure 1. compares the level of R&D funding per researcher FTE in our universities. New Zealand is at the low end, which reflects the fact that university R&D in New Zealand is characterised by a large number of PhD students and a very low level of postdoctoral and other fellowship funding. However you look at 6 it, we cannot expect to have internationally ranked universities with this level of R&D funding per researcher. (See recommendations 1 and 10.) Figure 1: University R&D funding per researcher across the OECD Figure 2. compares our spend on untargeted R&D funding (e.g. Marsden Fund) with the rest of the OECD. We spend very little on untargeted R&D funding (6.8% of public expenditure versus 18.7% across the OECD). Tripling the size of the Marsden fund would be justified in order to bring us closer to the OECD average, in terms of the proportion of public funds that we devote to untargeted R&D. (See recommendation 2.) Figure 2: Untargeted R&D spend as percentage of total public expenditure across the OECD Contestable funds (both through Marsden and MBIE) are crucial for the development of new ideas and the competitiveness of NZ researchers on the 7 international stage. Success rates must go up to lower transaction costs and increase innovative new approaches: this can be achieved by a) Increasing the size of the Marsden Fund – as justified by the OECD data on untargeted R&D funding (See recommendation 2.) b) Increasing the proportion of scientific funding administered by MBIE that is accessible to researchers looking to move a Marsden funded research project towards commercialization, without having yet found direct support from industry. (cf. the FRST NERF). (See recommendation 3.) Q2. Changes in emphasis Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in science that are over-­‐ or under-­‐emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are parts that are under-­‐emphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of the system that are less important, that could be scaled back over time? The draft statement does not clearly define the ‘Government’s wider objectives’. It is possible that these are embodied in the main objective’ to support a transformative system that delivers to New Zealand’s economic, social, environmental and cultural needs’ (p.16). NZAS supports this set of targets while noting delivery against them requires policies, funds and the organisation of research to be aligned to the broad sectors mentioned. These alignments are not apparent in the document. The ‘Government’s wider objectives’ may also be the ’key priorities for action’ on p.16 and elsewhere and the ideas expressed in the similar but different list of headings used in the section on ‘The current profile of science investment’. These lists cover directions and priorities for action that have mostly been operating in the science system for decades – none of them are new. NZAS continues to support them as directions that should be present in the science system in one form or another. Objective 1 in the list concerns ‘producing science of highest quality’ and links this to testing for impact. The document is imprecise about the meaning of ‘quality’ throughout. •
Quality of science is best achieved through international peer review •
The key determinants of impact are not simply the quality of science, but they do depend on it. Distributed decision making within a science program is important to maximise impact. Objective 2 points to a greater focus on the utility of research and states that even investigator-­‐led research should have clear relevance to the most pressing industry, social and environmental needs. This focus is not supported by the NZAS across the board, though it can certainly be appropriate for mission-­‐ and user-­‐led research. Utility is often based on vague possibilities that cannot be predefined: it would be more effective in the long-­‐term to capture the utility of research through emphasizing the responsibility to report over the years post-­‐
contract. The responsibility to manage science funding so that effort is not wasted or may be redirected as opportunities present themselves should also be emphasised. Scientific research is inherently serendipitous, and discoveries of 8 critical importance to modern society have routinely been under-­‐appreciated at the time of discovery. Hence, it does not make any sense to look for ‘relevance’ from all investigator-­‐led research. Q3. Performance of parts How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system perform, both individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve their performance? If so, how? We assume that the ‘Government’s overall investment system’ covers the funds discussed in the draft document rather than the overall system that is enabled by public investments in research activities. Settings affect both and the most important place to look for improvements is in the domain of the wider settings. Areas for improvement include: •
account taken of organisational objectives and incentives •
objectives and incentives for individuals should be acknowledged – e.g. in the workforce section p68, including the acknowledgement of TEC funding •
performance is much wider than the performance envisaged here – it depends on much more than MBIE manages •
misalignment exists – e.g. PBRF creates personal career incentives that conflict with commercial focus of recent incentives •
core funding and statements of corporate intent have reduced inter-­‐CRI competition. Alignment with/of the tertiary sector is lacking. Q4. Mix of Public Research Organisations Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand? NZAS notes that the draft statement does not contain either a definition of ‘public research institutions’ or references for assessing the meaning of ‘right mix’. ‘Public research institutions’ could refer to the three components shown in the diagram on p14: •
Callaghan Innovation’s residual research component – part of a Crown agency with ambiguous status as a research entity •
Crown Research Institutes – Crown owned companies •
PBRF funded organisations, such as universities The list would be extended if other forms of public research organisations or partially publicly funded research organisations are included: •
together, the Health Research Council (including the ownership interest of the Ministry of Health) and the research it supports, predominantly in two universities, but also in IROs and other research organisations, create another form of public research institution •
CoREs with an ambiguously independent status under host universities •
National Science Challenges (and at least one predecessor in the Natural Hazards Platform) provide another form of public research organisation 9 •
Independent Research Organisations, to the degree they get core (capability) funding, might also be included in this category. These lists provide a very diverse mixture of possible ‘public research institutions’. A question about the ‘right mix’ therefore has no simple answer. We note: •
The mixture of business models and ownership interests provides an unhelpful mix in terms of the stability of the science system. It incentivises competition for funds for organisational rather than for national benefit. This is a critical flaw, and a major overhead cost, for a very small country. •
There is a split between organisations aligned broadly to sector interests (Callaghan, CRIs, IROs, CoREs, NSC, HRC and medical establishments) and tertiary-­‐sector organisations whose prime purposes are educational. •
There are questions around long term stability. Some CRIs and some universities are under pressure. Amalgamations are possible. The introduction of NSC has created new points of competition and instability – both CRIs and universities see NSC as an opportunity to leverage more money, but CRIs lose control over some of their core funding. New governance arrangements create new compliance costs. •
CoREs exploit areas of opportunity and provide a successful mixture of research, capability development, sharing of equipment and infrastructure and public outreach. However, the CoRE system also creates instability in bidding rounds and whenever a CoRE is discontinued. The issue of the lifespan of a CoRE also needs to be addressed or simply clarified. •
NSC also create instabilities at formation with the prospect of a round of instability in the early 2020s as the current ones end NZAS notes the implication on p.24 that there should be more researchers employed in the tertiary sector and fewer in ‘government’ research organisations because the NZ balance between these groupings differs from those in other small economies1. NZAS believes that ‘right mix’ can only be considered in relation to the diversity of needs and targets to be addressed and based on evidence, not on comparisons with other small and often quite different economies. There have been recent attempts to create fewer and larger programmes and organisations. This implies an increased requirement for distributed decision making. Core funding for CRIs and IROs is important. Universities are important elements in enabling diversity and activities that are complementary to those of the CRIs/IROs. There are differences in the ability to organise large, multidisciplinary teams vs. small, single-­‐discipline teams. CRIs can manage the first and are therefore best for ‘homogeneous sectors’ (e.g. primary sectors, while recognising that these sectors are, in detail, very heterogeneous). Universities and Polytechs operate better through small teams and, collectively, they may have a greater ability to 1
The reliability of the split has to be in question given that the draft report is inconsistent (p.24) on the
number of FTE researchers in New Zealand in 2012, citing different total numbers at the top and bottom
of the page, neither of which match the numbers shown in Chart. 7. See recommendation 8.
10 meet the diversity of research need in manufacturing and services. If Callaghan Innovation is to meet its promise, it will need to capitalize on the lessons learned from IRL: the progress of the 10th NSC may be worthwhile monitoring for this explicit purpose. (See recommendation 6.) Q5. Monitoring and evaluation How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of: a. research institutions in the science and innovation system? b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation? c. the science and innovation system overall? Monitoring and evaluation are terms that suggest a mindset of control from the top. It would be better to put more effort into developing a culture of trust and a collective responsibility for creating, tracking and explaining outcomes. (See recommendation 9.) This would involve: •
better models for the systems and of the nature of innovation as it applies across all sectors (it is not simply an economic activity or an activity in the manufacturing and services sector) •
recognition of the fact that responsibilities for funding instruments are now widely spread across a range of funding agencies (including CRIs and universities) and ad-­‐hoc governance structures (e.g. those for NSC and CoREs) and that evaluation capabilities must be coordinated and shared •
a shift in mindset from control-­‐oriented mechanistic evaluation against preset assumptions about outcomes, to evaluation as a steering and adaptation mechanism more fitted to the uncertain realities of true research •
an articulation of the ways in which evaluative and steering activities at different levels of aggregation carried out by different entities (e.g. teams, governance structures, research organisations, funding agents, MBIE, TEC, MPI, other government agencies) will fit together •
some form of collective commitment to track and explain outcomes from the totality of science and innovation investment (i.e. wider than the funds covered in the draft document) over time. Question a: better monitoring and evaluation of research institutions The ‘we’ in question appears to be MBIE and, as before, ‘research institutions’ are not defined. It is clear that MBIE has the statutory authority to monitor and evaluate the performance of CRIs but it does not have this authority elsewhere. NZAS considers it would be more conducive to outcomes for MBIE to put effort into working with others under the approach outlined than to seek to extend its authority over other research organisations. Question b: better monitoring and evaluation of policy instruments NZAS assumes that ‘policy instruments’ means ‘funding instruments. We note that MoRST and FRST had programmes for systematic evaluation of funding 11 instruments in the early 2000s and that these were degraded and largely disappeared when MSI was formed. We do not know why this happened. Monitoring and evaluation of funding instruments is required but, as outlined above, it should be part of a larger and more integrated evaluation and steering effort. (See recommendations 4 and 8.) Question c: better monitoring and evaluation of the science and innovation system as a whole. NZAS does not agree that the model proposed in Chart 9 is an adequate basis for thinking about the science and innovation system and about economic, social and other impacts. It is simply a vague collection of diverse concepts loosely linked by arrows. There is little sense of how the parts relate, how the system works in whole or sub-­‐part or how it generates outcomes. There is minimal connection to the material about the system elsewhere in the draft document. The first step to better monitoring and evaluation should therefore be a model that relates the instruments and organisations in chart 1 to some broader conception of New Zealand’s innovation system (a much larger concept). The second step towards better monitoring and evaluation of science and innovation should be a major rethink of the indicators in the table on p.29. Many of these have very little to do with the policies and instruments covered in the draft statement. When indicators related to the draft statement do appear, they are strongly biased towards economic outcomes – there are in fact no indicators related directly to any other outcomes including societal, workforce and health issues which are at least as important as economic measures – and then mainly to high-­‐value manufacturing and services. The NZAS strongly supports better monitoring of the science system as a whole. Our 2008 survey of New Zealand Scientists and Technologists was an important document which has no current analogue. We would be keen to discuss with MBIE whether they would be willing to reconsider providing support for a 2015 Survey, as was done by MoRST in the past. Scientists are an essential part of our science system and working with them would seem to us to be an important component of a good management and evaluation system. (See recommendations 4, 8, and 9.) Q6. Benchmarking and monitoring measures Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that are particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance? There has been continual change in settings and funding mechanisms in the research system for more than 30 years. The consequences of this change should be monitored. Although changes have improved the focus on, and delivery of, outcomes, they have also created ongoing instability and lowered the attractiveness of science as a career. There are therefore two important areas where monitoring and benchmarking need to be improved: •
The overhead costs of policies and instruments to research organisations, users, research teams and individuals should be benchmarked and monitored. New policies and instruments should not be introduced 12 without publication of clear analyses of expected impacts on these costs and of long-­‐term consequences for capabilities within the system. •
There should be regular and independent surveys of the state and morale of the scientific workforce. NZAS has run NZ-­‐wide surveys of the state of the science system in the past (see our answer to Q5) and this is an activity that should also involve MBIE (it, after all, spends money monitoring the state and morale of its own workforce). We do not expect MBIE will find much comfort in the results of such surveys but it should at least be aware of the issues and be interested in knowing what is working and what is not from the viewpoint of researchers. The recent NZAS survey of scientists’ experiences with the NSCs provides a clear example: scientists opinions need not dictate funding, but a funding system that has lost the trust of scientists needs to be seriously looked at. (See recommendations 6 and 9.) •
The high cost of regulatory compliance needs to be included in the monitoring system. Q7. Addressing critical issues To what extent does the current set of Government-­‐wide investment policies and processes, and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical problems either in the science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What changes could be made to ensure those problems are being addressed? The following issues need to be addressed (many of these are also mentioned in responses to other questions): •
Continual change is a major issue for the science system. There has been no period with stable settings during the past three decades. To some extent, change does serve the interests of Governments and bureaucrats but it creates instability and imposes large overhead costs to the detriment of the productivity of the research sector. •
There continue to be unhelpful misalignments between the business interests of research organisations and the national benefits required from research funding. (See recommendation 7.) Governments and policy makers are likely to make better progress by realigning business interests than by attempting to push change through more intrusive funding, contracting and monitoring arrangements. •
Attention needs to be paid to the accumulation of overlapping governance structures particularly under policies designed to force more inter-­‐
organisational collaboration through mechanisms such as NSC and CoREs. Researchers and research organisations are now surrounded by a profusion of boards, panel, committees, consultation arrangements, associations, steering groups and contractual arrangements. Collectively, these drive up compliance costs. Streamlining is required. •
Policy makers and funding agencies continue to operate with little understanding of the distributed nature of decision making in the science 13 system. The amount and quality of outcomes depends on the quality of decision making at all levels down to the metaphorical ‘lab bench’. •
Researchers, research teams and research organisations continue to under-­‐
invest in explaining what they do (there have been notable improvements in this area in some CRIs recently; see also recommendation 7). NZAS acknowledges that scientists are often poor in this role. Improvements could be fostered by adopting a more comprehensive and useful system for evaluation and steering (see question 6). We also hope that the Science in Society project: A Nation of Curious Minds, will have measurable impact in this respect. •
The workforce section (p68) deals only with peripheral issues and misses the main point, namely the necessity for organisational structures in which it is safe to pursue a specialised career. (TEC funding should be explicitly acknowledged; see recommendation 8.) Scientists and research engineers, like medical consultants, make an enormous investment (training time and income forgone) in narrow fields of expertise to equip themselves to be at the forefront in their field. Faced with a constantly changing structure of research employment and ephemeral funding they will be discouraged from entering the profession or will emigrate. As a consequence, New Zealand will not retain or recruit world-­‐class let alone world-­‐leading scientists. •
Differences between CRI and university scientists: PBRF drivers vs. need to obtain MBIE funds and commercial contracts. PhD student training in conflict with prescriptive outcomes-­‐based reporting (in short term). •
Differences between career stages: The Marsden Fund favours senior scientists and early career scientists (Fast-­‐Start). The limited funding pool (see recommendation 2) means there is a gap in the middle not plugged by Rutherford Fellowships (too much capture of funds by institutions). In this context, very few senior researchers have access to funds to employ postdocs. (See recommendation 1.) •
•
•
Common issues: Contestability is crucial to allow for the turnover of ideas. C.V.s need to be kept internationally competitive for international peer review (publication, promotion, awards, not to mention proposals!) Marsden Fund probably has the lowest overhead possible (relative to success rate). It also has a large amount of trust from researchers – which promotes good behaviour, and results in less gaming of the system. We recommend an immediate increase in the Marsden Fund (recommendation 2) as well as an adjustment of the MBIE contestable pool to promote movement of successful Marsden research towards industry (requires lessened expectation of cofunding from industry in initial stages – see recommendation 3). Postdoctoral funds needed for career development (emerging researchers 0-­‐6 years post PhD); but also Rutherford Discovery Fellows (our best researchers building world-­‐leading research groups) should be able to 14 employ postdoctoral fellows to build critical mass in research laboratories. (See recommendation 1.) Q8. Mixture of investment mechanisms To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be combined, changed or removed to simplify the system? They could be made to work more coherently but it should also be recognized that it is in the nature of science that not all Marsden projects, for example, will lead to mission-­‐led funding and eventually to industry application. The role of MBIE should be to take a system view, to enable capture of the progression of that subset of research programmes, to describe the complementarity of the different funding mechanisms over time. Postdoctoral funds need to be reinstated, (see recommendation 1) and could be most efficiently managed by the RSNZ alongside their current processes for the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships. In addition, the incentives built in to the PBRF which disincentivise the hiring of postdoctoral fellows on research grants are of major concern. Including postdoctoral training as a key indicator of research quality would improve the balance of incentives. Health Research Funding needs to be rationalised. (See recommendation 5.) The three health-­‐related NSCs overlap considerably with research funded by the HRC and by CoREs, leading to relatively low investment in these challenges, a significant amount of which will be consumed in adminstrative costs. These challenges are in disarray because they are institutionally aligned and are not seen as independent. The health research community has voted no confidence in the current institutionally-­‐aligned structures proposed. We suggest one integrated institutionally-­‐independent funding organization for all health-­‐related research and in particular for research covered by the health-­‐related NSCs. The efficiency, independence, quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms of the HRC make it an ideal body for administering these NSCs. If necessary different funding mechanisms could be established within the HRC to cover all research under the health-­‐related NSCs. We advise a radical rethinking of the present model for these challenges that includes one administrative body for HRC, NSC and MBIE funded health research. Q9. International collaboration and cooperation How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms could advance this goal? We would like to see the evidence that New Zealand is lacking in international collaboration before agreeing that more is required. •
There are strong incentives for international collaboration in science. Almost all scientists collaborate with peers overseas. There are frequent 15 collaborations through email and internet exchanges as well as interactions through visits, conferences, joint research, sabbaticals and similar. New Zealand science depends on international referees in publishing, grant proposals, review processes and promotion applications. New Zealand scientists contribute to these processes elsewhere. •
Almost all research organisations have formal and informal relationships with overseas research organisations. Many also derive substantial sums from international research contracts. There is little evidence in the draft statement to suggest that MBIE recognises or collects data on these relationships. •
International collaboration needs access to funds, and needs to allow researchers to find the best or most suitable collaborator – this is compatible with and is supported by funding in the contestable, investigator-­‐led space (e.g. Marsden, HRC, etc.). Summary: International collaboration will look after itself, with access to funding of the kind that is already available. Q10. Other considerations in overall mix Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of investment in science? •
•
•
Rebalance the position of the Marsden Fund relative to other investment mechanisms by doubling investment in this pool (See recommendation 2.) Establish one institutionally-­‐independent organization to administer the health NSC. We suggest that the HRC would be the most suitable body for this purpose (see 9 above). (See recommendation 5.) We propose encouraging closer relationships between CRIs and Universities with less-­‐targeted basic research being conducted in an academic environment as already happens with some CRIs (AgResearch, Plant & Food, NIWA and GNS) 16 IV.
General Feedback on Direction Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science investment. These are: 1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality 2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the benefit of New Zealand 3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time 4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth 5. Increasing the scale of industry-­‐led research 6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga 7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our science system to benefit New Zealand. These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. None of the objectives are new. To a greater or lesser extent all of them have been in existence since the science reforms of the 1990s. Hence all should start with ‘Continuing’ in the same manner as #6. The objectives may appear new to MBIE. If so this is almost certainly because it has lost almost all of its institutional memory in relation to science investment. MBIE should refer to the 1996 Government science policy document, RS&T2010 and subsequent Government science policy documents. Q11. Focus on quality, relevance and impact Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should investigator-­‐, mission-­‐ or industry-­‐led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a sound pathway to impact and application, even if long term? There have been quality and relevance requirements in the research system for at least three decades. We note that quality, relevance and impact are not defined. We discussed the difference between science quality (as indicated by internation peer review) and broader definitions, including relevance and impact, in our answer to Q2. It appears that MBIE means ‘scientific quality’ when it refers to quality. This should be evaluated through expert peer review. For the evaluation of relevance and impact a ‘sound pathway’ is a poor measure. Any competent research leader will be able to describe ‘sound’ pathways to at least some impact or application. Whether or not these will eventuate is another matter, as research involves significant unknowns. MBIE or the Government could ask for more descriptions of sound pathways to impact and application for all of its investments. This would mainly achieve a flowering of creative writing. 17 What is required is self-­‐steering and an improved culture of trust. (See recommendation 9.) There are always tensions between public, organisational, team, individual and user interests (or goods). Incentives from these sources need to be combined to create a culture that thrives on, and embodies, research excellence and, where possible outreach and excellence. It appears that the Centres of Research Excellence have successfully achieved this kind of culture change – MBIE should look to learn from what has worked well here. (See recommendation 4.) Stronger pathways should obviously exist for mission-­‐led and user-­‐led programmes. Pathways to application are not necessarily appropriate for all investigator-­‐led research proposals but such proposals should contain explanations of significance. Q12. Business innovation and economic growth Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger contribution to business innovation and economic growth? a. If not, towards what high-­‐level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in our science investments? b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as priorities for our science investments? The evidence presented in the NSSI to suggest that there is low utilisation of university research by business is highly misleading. As a percentage of business expenditure on R&D, New Zealand businesses spent 2.9% on university R&D compared to the OECD average of 2.2% (using data from 2010-­‐2012). Similarly businesses devoted about 8.5% of BERD (business expenditure on R&D) on the CRIs and government labs compared to 1.9% across the OECD. Thus one can make an argument that business R&D is better connected to public sector R&D (both University and CRI) in New Zealand than it is across OECD. The low level of financing of HERD (higher education R&D) by industry noted in the NSSI simply reflects the low level of expenditure in general. (Source: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators database, 2014.) It is unclear what MBIE means by ‘business’. It appears to be manufacturing and services rather than businesses in the primary sector (merely ‘industries’) and then mainly high-­‐tech businesses. This narrow view of ‘business innovation’ is evident in the list of indicators on p.29. It is also unclear what is intended by ‘greater orientation’. The large amount of new funding claimed for Callaghan Innovation (p.19) should suffice as a driver of non-­‐primary-­‐sectors ‘business innovation and economic growth’. No greater re-­‐
orientation should be required until Callaghan Innovation has demonstrated both its effectiveness and the extent of unmet demands for its services and funds. Question a: high-­‐level outcomes The document states intentions to continue to support high-­‐value manufacturing, primary industries, high-­‐growth high-­‐productivity export sectors and areas of comparative advantage (p. 23). These intentions have been in place as targeted ‘high-­‐level outcomes’ for at least three decades. 18 NZAS notes that the high-­‐level outcomes (goal) structure that question a may be referring to does not appear in the draft statement. Shifts in science investments at this level are hard to recognise because there are no data under the structure. Any shifts in public science investment relevant to the New Zealand economy, environment, society and workforce should be transparent, evidence based, and made in consultation with those scientists most affected by the changes. Q13. Role of collaboration How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition? We noted under question 1 that MBIE does not appear to appreciate that collaboration and competition are almost always present in all research. In fact: •
collaboration already exists extensively between scientists and is part of the normal way of carrying out research •
collaboration exists extensively within research organisations and this can be just as valuable as collaboration between organisations (e.g. CRIs are multidisciplinary organisations and organise almost all of their work around collaborative teams) •
many collaborations also exist between many different research organisations at the level of individuals and teams. The historic concern about collaboration that is still reflected in the question arises from the very different issue that research organisations operate under ‘ownership pressures’. These incentivise them to maximise the income they can get from other organisations pursuing the same end, and make interactions difficult. It is always much easier to collaborate when jobs and survival are not on the line. The NZ system has had a long history of trying to operate under this arrangement. Improvements have come in the CRI space with the increase in core funding – a lesson is to be learned from this. Competition almost always exists at all levels, and is healthy when it does not disincentivise natural collaboration, as outlined above. Q14. Current configuration of research organisations How might the current set-­‐up of New Zealand’s research institutions either encourage or discourage across-­‐research institution collaborations, international researcher collaborations, or user collaborations? Collaboration is incentivised in some parts of the science system (e.g. CoREs, NSCs) and disincentivised in others (PBRF incentives, NSC mapping of CRI core funding). In particular: •
scientists collaborate in order to gain a competitive advantage – they will do so naturally when it is not disincentivised. Complementary expertise is important in science. 19 •
Barriers to collaboration within NZ include, for example, the shrinking size limit on a Marsden grant: senior researchers (who get these grants) can only pay a small proportion of their own salary. •
NSC processes appear to have been driven by institutions, and this is reflected by comments from the science community with regard to the capture of these funds. Coming to a consensus on how to divide up the pot is not the same as collaboration. NSC administration should be institutionally non-­‐aligned. •
CoREs are a great means of encouraging collaboration – especially where originally built around access to shared equipment and infrastructure. •
Infrastructure is a key driver of collaboration – the need for infrastructure is also why we have institutions. We need to ensure best practice across the sector with regard to large infrastructure purchases. •
Collaboration with industry – there is a need to understand the extent to which commercially-­‐funded work in CRIs supports the maintenance of capability etc. •
Core funding for CRIs: the lesson is that relative stability is good •
The creation of new opportunitites, such as NSC, CoREs create new points for competition. This has both pros and cons. Q15. Engaging knowledge users How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science investments? What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date? Knowledge users can engage in improving the impact of research by paying for the research that they need. Many do already although this is not evident in the draft statement as it stands. Paying for research is particularly important because ‘users’ rarely exist as homogeneous groupings. Individual organisations may be able to determine their needs and contract for research to meet them whereas groupings of users can rarely agree on needs and therefore come together mainly as lobbyists seeking more funds rather than specific impacts. With this reservation in mind, there is still scope for user influences that have the potential to improve impacts of Government (‘our’) science investments. User representatives should have roles in the development of RfPs, in the organisation, development and operation of all industry-­‐led research and, to lesser extents in mission-­‐led research, in the organisation, development and operation of NSC and in the governance of research organisations. All of these avenues of influence are currently in play. NZAS is not in a position to assess what can be learned from mechanisms designed to increase user engagement including structures such as platforms, CoREs, research consortia, PGP consortia, Envirolink groupings, the tertiary-­‐
sector-­‐funded consortia and the various structures used by the Foundation and HRC to encourage user-­‐led research groupings. The critical point is that MBIE should be prepared to learn from what has worked or not worked in the past 20 before it tries to put in place any new mechanisms designed to increase user engagement. Q16. Adequacy of general direction of change Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction of change? The general direction of change is to incentivise research which has commercial or economic value. A social, environmental and health imperative must be included in the science direction as these values impact on commercial and economic directions. It needs to be recognized that increasing emphasis on economic and commercial outcomes comes at the cost of disincentivising other forms of research, such as those that produce new knowledge or create public goods. Not all of the goals in the funding system should incentivise the same behavior, but in recent years there has been a narrowing of alignment of research funding with all incentives pointing in the same direction. This must stop. Economic and commercial outcomes are only one of the desirable outcomes from public investment in science. A more balanced values-­‐based approach to science investment is strongly encouraged by NZAS. Q17. Improving quality and impact How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund? The draft statement contains many instances of loose construction. ‘We fund’ could suggest MBIE, but MBIE is an agency that funds on behalf of Government which supports science on behalf of all New Zealanders. All stakeholders should be involved in working to improve the quality and impact of Government investment in science. Q18. Differential assessment of quality Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-­‐led, mission-­‐led, and industry-­‐
led research? If so, how? See answers to Q2 and Q11 for a discussion of ‘quality’. If quality is taken to mean ‘science quality’, then no: peer review should be the standard for any science that receives public funds. If quality is taken to include measures of impact, then yes: impact will look very different in these different areas. It is likely to also require different timeframes for assessment. Q19. Improving international connectedness How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research community and research-­‐active companies? We assume that this question applies particularly to the International Relationships Fund (otherwise it is covered by our response to question 9). We note that the IRF already has very diverse objectives for a relatively small fund. The recent move to expand IRF’s scope to embrace more 21 commercialisation, increased exports by New Zealand businesses (p. 60) and understanding of international markets (p. 59) is simply diluting the fund further. It is unclear to us why this expansion is necessary given the existence of whole funding agencies with responsibilities in these areas in the form of NZ Trade and Enterprise and Callaghan Innovation. It appears that MBIE is trying to make every fund serve every purpose. (See our answer to question 16.) The draft statement provides little meaningful analysis of the international connectedness and engagement of the research community, and none at all for research-­‐active companies; collecting information should be the first step (See recommendation 4). 22 V.
Feedback on Structure of MBIE Sector-­‐Specific Research Funds We want to refine the funding architecture so that it is best suited to meet New Zealand’s science needs into the future. We want to know whether funding tools are appropriate to deliver on the NSSI objectives, and in particular whether further reforms to, and simplification of, sector-­‐specific funds are necessary. This draft Statement proposes work to: •
consider the role of ‘contest’ in refreshing and supporting emerging opportunities now that we have a significant proportion of Vote Science and Innovation funds allocated to long-­‐term, strategic investments via CRI core funding and the National Science Challenges •
increase flexibility and ease of operation by having fewer, larger funding mechanisms, and more flexible use of mechanisms to adjust the degree of contestability of funding. We will aim to reduce and minimise compliance costs in doing so •
increase the focus of the funds on research with direct relevance to the most pressing industry, environmental and social needs •
implement measures to place greater emphasis on impact in assessment of applications, new contracts and existing contracts, including potentially separating assessment of impact from •
assessment of quality of science, as per the Irish model. Where possible, emphasis should be on investment in sectors of future growth, value, and critical need. Q20. Changing sector-­‐specific research funds Are the current sector-­‐specific research funds in need of change? If so what direction of change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are: a. the multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds and the complexity of funds b. the accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI, established or new entrants into the system c. the sector-­‐based nature of funding tools d. the length of funding allocation e. the form and processes of peer review f. the relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for impact, past performance and the quality of the research proposal and research team. The so-­‐called ‘MBIE’ sector-­‐specific funds of the heading are residues of the original sector-­‐differentiated Public-­‐Good Science and Technology (PGSF) funding combined with a muddle of various historical funding mechanisms. MBIE should first be aware that the funding arrangements involved predate the 23 supposed 2010 of initiation (p 46) by decades. It should take account of the learning from these decades of operation if it wishes to redesign the fund. (See recommendation 4.) NZAS considers that it is necessary to have a sector-­‐based split for mission-­‐led funds of this nature. The sector split has been in existence since the reforms of the 1990 and has been there for good reasons: •
it is impossible to define missions (the role claimed by MBIE for itself, or government, on p. 44) without sector splits •
it is exceedingly difficult to weigh up the relative benefits of bids when they apply to very disparate sectors (e.g. established industry sectors vs. say social wellbeing or the environment). NZAS therefore considers that sector splits should be retained. Simplifications could be achieved within this subdivision by focusing on sectors rather than a muddle of sector impacts and capabilities. Recommended changes are: •
reassigning PGSF residues used for health research to HRC control – the funding involved is now simply the ghost of past Foundation ambitions •
amalgamating the generation of new industries and leading technological capabilities outputs (removing a muddle between end and capability outcomes) •
dropping the policy requirement to give effect to Vision Matauranga; this can be expressed in whatever way makes sense in specific RfPs but is inappropriately a capability requirement in a list of sector splits and, if necessary, can also be met by transferring some funds to the Vision Matauranga Capability Fund. Simplification can also be achieved by dropping most of the funding-­‐mechanism or ‘tool’ structure. This is mostly a legacy of the Foundation’s attempts to control the composition of research while providing flexibility. There is insufficient space for this sort of central steering now that only residues of the original PGSF remain. NZAS therefore recommends that: •
IRO funding be realigned into an expanded and renamed ‘Research organisation core funding’. This will enable core funding for IRO and CRIs to be treated and assessed in a consistent and transparent manner. NZAS notes here that universities get core funding through the PBRF and other tertiary funding and so do not need to be considered as part of this rearrangement. •
Envirolink should be folded into the ‘effective management and mitigation of environmental risks’ output. Mission-­‐led research in this output should reach out, where appropriate, to regional councils in the same manner as mission-­‐led research reaches out to end users under other Sector-­‐Specific Research Fund outputs. If links with regional councils are a problem this is a matter that MfE should become involved with – NZAS notes that research funding from this agency has been ignored in the draft statement. •
Smart Funding, Enabling Technologies, Targeted Research and Partnership Funding tools should all be dropped in favour of a simple split between 24 small-­‐scale projects (3 year duration) and large-­‐scale programmes (6 year duration). Particular requirements for technologies and partnerships belong properly to RfPs and do not need to appear as separate funding mechanisms. Q21. Differentiated assessment of quality Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sector-­‐specific research funds? It is not clear what MBIE means by ‘quality’. (See also our responses to questions 2, 11, 18.) The term is often used as a short-­‐hand for scientific quality defined largely in relation to publication in internationally-­‐recognised, peer-­‐reviewed journals. This view of quality is too narrow for the mission-­‐led research that is supposed to take place through the Sector-­‐Specific Research Fund. NZAS considers that mission-­‐led research requires consideration of at least two dimensions of quality: •
The research should be excellent in the sense that it is challenging and capable of generating high impact outputs. Challenge implies that elements of discovery, integration of new and existing knowledge, and ‘packaging’ into forms that will be useful to users must all be present. We note that the synthesis involved in these steps may be just as demanding as the narrow, reductive research that appears in scientific papers. •
The research must be fit for purpose. Fitness for purpose means that the work has a credible links to the knowledge and capabilities that have the prospect of meeting objectives. The first of these dimensions must be assessed through field-­‐related scientific peer review, and will not change significantly across the spectrum of funds. The second may, however, change significantly. Q22. Indicators of scientific quality What indicators of scientific quality should we use in our assessment processes? Should these be the same across all MBIE sector-­‐specific funding tools? Peer review is a key indicator of quality. While it tends to be based on metrics of scientific productivity (publications, citations, impact factors and h-­‐indices), only in the context of peer review can such metrics be used appropriately in the context of the work. Using them outside of expert assessment is dangerous and should be absolutely avoided. Q23. Degree of targeting How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding investments? NZAS assumes that this question applies to Sector-­‐Specific Research Funds rather than some wider list of investments. The degree of targeting in mission-­‐led research depends upon the area in question. In some areas, end outcomes are hard to be specific about while research capabilities that are likely to lead to useful outcomes can be specified. 25 This was why NERF existed and NERF RfPs reflected the stronger emphasis on capability targets. In other areas targeted end outcomes can be specified with greater precision and the research (and adaptation and uptake) capabilities needed to get there need less emphasis – they will be delivered by those involved. NZAS recommends that targeting within the Sector-­‐Specific Research Fund be tailored to the requirements of specific areas with greater flexibility specified in RfPs for areas where end outcomes are harder to specify. (See recommendation 3.) Q24. Gaps in funding mechanisms Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available? •
•
•
The increased expectation for industry co-­‐funding in the Sector-­‐Specific Research Funds (due to the loss of the NERF) has meant that research programmes that could have previously existed in this space have little mechanism for funding beyond that of Marsden, which, perversely, has created a larger gap between some investigator-­‐led programmes and industry. (See recommendation 3.) TEC uses success in obtaining competitive funds in PBRF. This creates perverse incentives. (See recommendation 4.) The absence of a nationally-­‐competitive postdoctoral funding scheme, in addition to the perverse incentives in the PBRF, have led to a serious gap which will impact on a generation of NZ scientists. Also affected are mid-­‐
career researchers who find it difficult to employ postdocs in their labs. (See recommendation 1.) Q25. Monitoring and evaluation How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of MBIE’s research contracts? Are there any features that are particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance of contracts? See our answer to question 6. Q26. Encouraging industry co-­‐investment What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co-­‐investments in R&D, where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry, social and environmental needs? MBIE appears still to be operating from the mindset of the Foundation. That organisation did not understand why CRIs were formed and did not get past the idea that co-­‐funding was a necessary ingredient for there to be impacts from the research contracts it funded, not to mention a return on investment (another perverse incentive?). In actuality, CRIs were set up to enable technology transfer by attracting industry co-­‐funding. The original idea was that public funding would enable CRIs to maintain and build stocks of knowledge and capabilities, and that impacts would arise when other entities, private and public, tapped into these stocks and capabilities by contracting for work in areas of application. This 26 model worked despite the intrusion of Foundation policies. CRIs have got more than half their income from users of various sorts for many years. This suggests that CRIs operate with appropriate foci on industry, social and environmental needs – otherwise why would users be prepared to invest so much money in them? NZAS assumes that some IROs and, to a lesser extent, universities also operate with appropriate focus on industry needs. Under this argument, the best way to encourage co-­‐investment is through adequate funding of mission-­‐led and investigator-­‐led research. This will enable research organisations to develop and maintain research capabilities of interest to users. The commercial pressures will ensure that these are deployed. MBIE should understand this arrangement and not attempt to make co-­‐funding a universal requirement. (See recommendation 3.) Q27. Increasing industry-­‐led research What are the implications of increasing the proportion of industry-­‐led research in MBIE funds? a. Should leveraging private investment be a more heavily weighted goal for our science investments? Why or why not? b. If so, what are the current barriers to increased private investment and how might they be overcome? Question a: increased private sector leverage The funds in question are government funds, not MBIE funds. This matters because the government probably intends the research funded to be useful to more than just industry and the private sector and this offsets MBIE’s unthinking bias in those directions -­‐ the Sector Specific Research Fund is only partly about economic sectors. The answer to Question 27a has been provided under Question 26: sector-­‐
specific funding should be directed towards mission-­‐led research so that internal capabilities that can be leveraged through user-­‐funded are supported and developed. Attempting to leverage ever more funding out of users by co-­‐funding will have two main consequences: •
there will be a continuing and progressive erosion of the underpinning research capabilities as longer-­‐term, mission-­‐led research effort is shifted towards the short time horizon research typically required by industries •
the ability of universities to compete for Sector-­‐Specific Research Funds will be decreased because they are generally less able to assemble the teams of researchers. Q28. Improving uptake of research What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users? The fact that CRIs earn more than half their income from users suggests that uptake is occurring. The question that should be thought through and much 27 better understood is: when does this uptake occur? It is probably safe to assert that a high proportion of current uptake stems from research that has taken many years to develop and that there is every prospect that a similar proportion of current research is likely to find users well into the future. The direct relationship between current research and current uptake is low. Q29. Other issues Is there anything else we should consider about proposed changes to the structure of MBIE’s sector-­‐specific research funds? MBIE appears to lack an adequate model for thinking about the structure of the government’s Sector-­‐Specific Research Fund. An adequate analysis would: •
explain how the Sector-­‐Specific Research Fund (SSRF) fits with all other sector-­‐specific research funds in the three Votes covered in the draft statement •
provide an analysis of other sources of sector-­‐specific research funding provided through ministries and agencies not mentioned in the draft statement (Other government, p19) so that the adequacy and fit of the Vote Science and Innovation SSRF can be assessed against these sources •
provide a clear explanation of how SSRF funds relate to NSC and the impacts narrowed NSC objectives are going to have on the span of work once possible under SSRF. See recommendations 4 and 8. 28 RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S DRAFT
NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT
Prepared by:
Kiwi Innovation Network Limited (KiwiNet)
22nd August 2014
Aug-14
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The draft National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) provides for the first time a
comprehensive overview of government investment into science. It offers a framework for
discussing how the system can be further improved. KiwiNet welcomes the government’s openness
to contributions.
The draft NSSI presents a static view of what is a very dynamic system. Greater insights and
performance could be gained by focusing on how the system components work together, rather
than the level of funding that each component receives. We recommend the government focus on
how ideas can flow more effectively through this system of different funding mechanisms from
fundamental research to commercial application. Ultimately, connecting the different government
funding mechanisms will drive a thriving innovation ecosystem that generates and nurtures ideas,
underpinning significant business growth.
KiwiNet’s role is to support and fund research commercialisation across Universities and CRIs,
primarily through contract research, licencing and start-ups. This role gives us a distinct perspective
on the interactions between science and business. We see what works and what doesn’t work.
There are certainly common criteria that we can learn from by analysing New Zealand’s most
productive partnerships between science and business. The most important criteria are: long lasting
relationships; research relevant to market needs; a clear pathway to delivery; and a commitment to
deliver. These criteria are critical to successful partnerships with industry or investors. However, the
current contestable science funding system often makes it difficult to establish such enduring
relationships.
Based on our experience we see three fundamental areas where government leadership would have
a transformational effect on the commercial outcomes derived from publicly funded research.



Pathway – Presenting government interventions as a continuum that illustrates a clear
pathway to delivery, where ideas can flow from science through to commercial application.
Relationships – Creating introductions and fostering long lasting relationships between
researchers and business resulting in research relevant to market needs.
Drivers – Encouraging researchers and research organisations to pursue commercial
opportunities and supporting a commitment to deliver on commercial outcomes.
The views and recommendations in this document are grouped under these areas. They are
supported by examples of effective knowledge transfer from science to business and examples of
opportunities being missed. A number of KiwiNet’s recommendations would require little or no
additional government investment.
KiwiNet’s recommendations target those researchers that are willing to work with businesses and
see their research applied. Clearer leadership from the government around the three key areas
described will drive a culture change in the business and research communities to bring them closer
together. The result will be more researchers doing science that is relevant to market needs because
they understand how their research will be applied. Likewise, more businesses will be willing to
invest in research because they have confidence in the researchers and the process. As a result,
researchers and businesses will together uncover opportunities for new and disruptive innovation
that can provide competitive advantage for New Zealand in the global economy.
Aug-14
Page 2
ABOUT KIWINET
This response is prepared by Kiwi Innovation Network Limited (KiwiNet).
KiwiNet is a consortium of thirteen New Zealand research organisations that are committed to
collectively raising the quantity and quality of commercial returns from public research for New
Zealand’s benefit. KiwiNet’s activities are ultimately targeted at growing export earnings and
creating high-value jobs in New Zealand.
KiwiNet operates in the so called “Valley of Death”: that is the space where many potential
opportunities are lost because they don’t fit the criteria for research funding and are too high risk for
industry and investors.
KiwiNet is part of the government’s Commercialisation Partner Network (CPN). Many of New
Zealand’s public research organisations (PROs) collaborate in their commercialisation efforts through
KiwiNet. This collaboration creates a trusted environment for sharing information, identifying new
and better commercialisation opportunities and driving more efficient and effective allocation of
government PreSeed Accelerator funds (PreSeed).
KiwiNet’s breadth of membership and specific focus on increasing value from publicly-funded
research provides it with a distinctive view of the drivers and opportunities of its participating
research organisations along with a perspective on the wider science and innovation system.
KiwiNet is a non-profit organisation. KiwiNet provides training, information services and portfolio
investment advice to its members and other participating research organisations such as Cawthron
Institute. The KiwiNet Investment Committee is made up of research organisation and private sector
representatives. Together the committee members manage the collective commercialisation
pipeline and allocate government devolved PreSeed Accelerator Funding (PreSeed) to projects that
meet NZ benefit and investment guidelines.
Aug-14
Page 3
EMPHASIS ON DELIVERY
The diagram below illustrates the way in which ideas can flow through the publicly funded science
system. In particular it separates out how government funding for delivery transforms these
outcomes from applied science into innovation that creates jobs and export earnings. The diagram
focuses on delivery pathways that can involve R&D Business Grants, PreSeed and Technology
Incubators, although we recognise that there are other delivery pathways such as CRI Core Funding
and PGP.
An important characteristic of the current system is that most science funding places substantially
more emphasis on discovery than on delivery. The basis for KiwiNet’s response to the NSSI is
encouraging researchers to cross the line that separates discovery from delivery through:
Patents
Business
Grant
Technology
Incubators
New high-tech jobs
High quality
science
Skilled people
Sustaining
Innovation
PreSeed
Acceleration
New
Start-up
Benefit to NZ
Licence
to firm/s
Contract
Research
New export earnings
Government
Delivery Funding
Disruptive
Innovation
DELIVERY
Publications
Applied
Research
Market Need
Aug-14
Research
Outputs
Fundamental
Research
DISCOVERY

Commercial
Outputs

Pathway – Describing the delivery pathway in more detail, so that more researchers
understand what is involved in transforming research outputs into commercial outputs.
Relationships – Encouraging researchers to get the right support to cross the line, by
understanding market need and connecting with delivery partners (industry, investors and
commercialisation support).
Drivers – Ensuring that when researchers do cross the line to pursue delivery, that their
work is measured and recognised.
Benefit
to NZ

Page 4
1.
PATHWAY – FROM DISCOVERY TO DELIVERY
Since the 1980s NZ has set up a highly competitive, performance orientated science system. This has
resulted in a structure where individual parts are very effective at producing specific outcomes, but
where too many great opportunities slip through the gaps.
The NSSI shows a static view of how funding is allocated to the parts of the system, but provides
little information on the connections between the parts. Connecting these parts more effectively will
substantially improve outcomes without losing the already hard-won performance gains. The
government needs to set clear expectations about how allocated funds can interact to create a flow
of ideas between science and business.
Scenario 1.1, the University perspective - University researchers can produce high quality research
and publications within the constraints of a single funding allocation such as Marsden or a
contestable grant. However, often it is assumed that businesses will then directly adopt the most
promising results. This is great when it happens, but in most cases the research outcomes are still
too technically risky for businesses to take on. As a result, too many promising commercial
opportunities are stalled once research funding is completed. With earlier awareness and planning
these opportunities could be pursued through other delivery mechanisms.
Scenario 1.2, the CRI perspective – CRIs are structured around connecting scientific capability with
industry and government needs in their target sectors. The benefit is a more seamless flow from
ideas to application. However, this more focused approach means CRI’s research discoveries are not
applied to sectors outside their core purpose. More opportunities could be realised by establishing a
complementary pathway for CRI innovation through start-ups and licensing, without drawing
funding from Core Purpose priorities. Researchers need to understand that funding for commercial
activities can be leveraged to support commercialisation (e.g. PreSeed), potentially by other
research organisations (e.g. MIPs1).
The discontinuity from discovery to delivery
Investment
The graphic below depicts the discontinuity between research funding and commercialisation
support funding that commonly occurs. Researchers often consider commercialisation only once
contestable research funding for their research has run out. Delivery is then carried out by Tech
Transfer Professionals who are brought on late in the process. At this stage there has often been
little or no prior business engagement, patentable positions may have been lost due to publication,
and researchers are sometimes no longer able to work on the project due to lack of funding.
Discontinuity
Fundamental
Research
Funding
Applied
Research
Funding
Delivery
Funding
Business
Investment
Time
Fundamental
research
Applied
research
Proof of
Principle
Business case
& Prototype
Product
Development
Market Entry
1
Molecular Imprinted Polymers (MIPs), discovered at Plant & Food, but outside of core purpose so patents
lapsed. Picked up by WinTec, WaikatoLink and PreSeed, and now has substantial commercial potential.
Aug-14
Page 5
Recommendation 1, Plan for success – Adjust applied research funding criteria and allocation so
that when research programmes are successful, there is a logical pathway prepared and adequate
provision of resources for delivery.
RFPs for applied research grants need to provide clearer expectations for applicants to describe
how successful research outputs will be converted into commercial outcomes. Applicants should
be expected to demonstrate a good understanding of the funding (such as PreSeed) and support
that is available to support delivery. They should also include a specific budget allocation for IP
protection and commercialisation / delivery activities along the way, rather than at the end.
Recommendation 1.1 - Under “Implementation Pathway”, RFPs for applied research funding
should include the statement: You may wish to consider including in your proposal information on:


How you will leverage commercialisation support tools such as PreSeed Accelerator
Funding, Technology Incubators and Callaghan Innovation Business R&D Grants from
agencies such as the Commercialisation Partner Network and Callaghan Innovation to
support successful transfer of research outputs to industry and investors.
What resources you have budgeted for IP protection and technology transfer activities to
be carried out by a technology transfer office or external commercial support agency, to
ensure that successful outcomes of this research programme can be transferred to
business in a way that maximises the benefit to New Zealand.
Recommendation 1.2 – Under “Ability to deliver results”, RFPs for applied research funding
should request that researchers describe their track record in terms of business engagement,
business investment, connecting with commercialisation support or securing commercialisation
funding such as PreSeed Investment.
Recommendation 2, What does success look like - Describe a vision for a research community
that is highly connected with business and feeding a knowledge economy.
Recommendation 2.1 - The government could create a vision document that describes the
various ways that publicly funded research can drive innovation and economic benefit for New
Zealand. Perhaps the document could be called “Vision Knowledge Economy New Zealand”. The
document would describe:



The core outcomes the government seeks from research that drives innovation. For
example, deep business engagement, skilled graduates hired by companies, high levels of
business investment, high-tech job creation and increased export earnings.
The various delivery pathways through which research can support firms and deliver
economic gains, including both sustaining versus disruptive innovation. For example,
contract research agreements, student internships in companies, licencing IP rights, new
start-up ventures.
How the various delivery support mechanisms fit into the system, such as Callaghan
Innovation, Commercialisation Partner Network, PreSeed, Technology Incubators, etc.
Recommendation 2.2 - Relevant research funding RFPs could then ask researchers to refer to the
vision document described above when they describe the implementation pathway in their
research proposals. The result would be a research community that is much better informed of
the various pathways to economic impact, the support that is available and the target outcomes.
Aug-14
Page 6
2.
RELATIONSHIPS – DEEP & LONG LASTING
Fertile innovation systems require more than just the smartest and most creative minds. World
leading innovation systems foster deep relationships between science and business that result in a
continuous flow of ideas and expertise in both directions. Such environments help businesses have
the faith to invest in science and ensure researchers are grounded in the realities of market drivers.
The NSSI identifies “Increasing the scale of industry-led research” as one of the key priorities for
action, but it places little emphasis on the importance of deep relationships outside of the CRIs. New
Zealand’s high performance research system contains many clever scientists. However, the lack of
widespread connectivity between research and business results in what the Powering Innovation
report identified as “limitations in depth and relevance of research capability”2.
There is a great deal of willingness amongst the research and business communities to form deeper
relationships. The challenge is that both sides are struggling to know where to start or how to make
it work. Researchers often contact businesses only when they have funding proposals due and need
to refer to a commercial partner. Businesses sometimes request IP ownership early, which can result
in complex IP ownership structures that encumber future commercialisation activities.
Successful commercial outcomes seldom result from a 1-dimensional strategy of investigator-led or
industry-led science. They result from multi-dimensional partnerships, where business people and
scientists build trusted relationships, where scientists understand the broader business operations,
where graduates are ultimately recruited by the business. The outcome is scientific and industry
capability being combined to uncover opportunities that neither would have seen alone.
So much innovation emerges from scientists using capability they didn’t know was useful to
pursue opportunities industry didn’t know they had.
Case study 2.1 – 2014 research commercialisation award winner: Since 2007, Tait Communications
and the Wireless Research Centre (WRC) at the University of Canterbury have built a strong
partnership. Tait has contributed $2.2 million in cash to this partnership so far, with another $1.5
million committed. The partnership also involves students doing projects within Tait and often
ultimately being hired by Tait. This partnership has allowed Tait to significantly expand its export
business and has raised the capability of both organisations.
Case study 2.2 - 2013 research commercialisation award winner: Since 2011, the Cloudy Bay Group
(CBG) and AUT have developed a strong collaborative relationship. On the back of successful early
projects, CBG invested substantially towards AUT research. The results increased their commercial
catch by 2.5 times, created potential export earnings of $20 million per year for the sector. CBG’s
business has grown significantly as a result and they have invested in further research at AUT.
Case study 2.3 - Plant & Food Research (PFR) and Zespri have a long lasting and deep relationship
resulting in new world leading kiwifruit varieties. Zespri invests significantly alongside PFR and MBIE.
New varieties pass seamlessly from PFR to Zespri and PFR scientists support the commercial roll out
globally. There is daily interaction with joint appointments, secondments and people from both
organisations spending time in each other’s facilities. Partnerships like this are why CRIs perform at
the top end of OECD data for business investment in public research organisations. 3 This model
could be adopted more broadly than just the CRIs and a few research teams at Universities.
2
3
2011 Powering Innovation Report, Callaghan Innovation, by Prof John Raine, Prof Mina Teicher, Philip O’Reilly
2011 Economic Development Indicators – Ministry of Economic Development
Aug-14
Page 7
Recommendation 3 - Incentives for researchers to build deep relationships with businesses
3.1 Automatic matching funding to researchers who secure business investment
Extend business R&D grants so that researchers are allocated $1 of government funding for every
$1 of private investment they secure. The process should be straightforward with minimal
administration and simple criteria. This scheme is different from Callaghan Innovation Business
R&D Grants because the funding goes to the research team and the parties negotiate IP rights.
This creates an incentive for researchers to seek business investment, knowing that it will be
automatically doubled. There is also no pressure to hand over IP too early in the process without
considering how to produce the best benefits for New Zealand. Schemes such as this have worked
well overseas (e.g. Denmark4). This scheme could be run by Callaghan Innovation through existing
business grants or through the Commercialisation Partner Network.
If the government is concerned about the scale of this commitment, perhaps initially offer this
only to qualifying research teams (e.g. Smart Ideas contract holders).
3.2 Incentives for relationship building – Scientist in residence
Provide small blocks of funding to support researchers to travel internationally alongside
companies. This could include attending international trade shows or visit overseas companies to
view technologies that could be adopted in New Zealand. A $5k-$10k subsidy for a researcher to
travel alongside a company could result in new and valuable relationships.
Recommendation 4 – Engineer serendipity by bringing researchers and business together.
4.1 Business challenges
Create an online platform for businesses to engage with the whole research community around a
technical challenge, rather than approaching individual organisations one at a time. Researchers
from a range of different fields will be able to view challenges directly and respond with a variety
of solutions. KiwiNet has experimented with this with high levels of interest from the research
community. As another example, a number of people still talk positively about the “What’s your
problem New Zealand” initiative that was run by Industrial Research Limited.
4.2 Prototyping fund
Recommendation 4.1 should be accompanied with a “Prototyping Fund”. This would provide small
blocks of funding to researchers (e.g. $10k-$20k) to develop rough “proof-of-principle”
implementations of ideas that firms are interested in. In this way multiple solutions to a business
challenges can be pursued in parallel, including some more “left field” ideas.
4.3 Business – Research introduction workshops
Run workshops (not the same as showcase events) where researchers and business people meet
to discuss innovation opportunities in a specific section. There is a high level of demand from both
research organisations and businesses to participate in such activities. KiwiNet has had good
feedback from running these workshops which are attended by roughly 20-60 people. These
events are only scraping the surface of the demand.
4
Danish “matching fund” (est. 2011) – government funding to match company funds secured by research orgs.
Aug-14
Page 8
3.
DRIVERS – INCENTIVISE & ENABLE DELIVERY
Working alongside researchers, we see the pressure they are under to meet teaching, publication
and contract research obligations. We see that these pressures toward short term returns are often
counter to fostering a connected and entrepreneurial culture. This is despite the fact that if the
process is managed well, building business relationships and securing business investment can be
complementary to a highly productive research system.
Often the Ministry questions why research organisations themselves don’t commit more funding to
commercialisation if the opportunities are so promising. Firstly, the government doesn’t require it.
Government funding to universities places emphasis on teaching and research excellence and
funding to CRIs places emphasis on supporting core purpose industries. PreSeed is the rare
exception as described in the scenarios below. Secondly, it requires high-risk long-term investment.
Despite this, research organisations do invest in commercialisation, but it is little wonder that the
size of this investment is comparatively small.
Scenario 3.1 – From the researcher’s perspective: The PBRF system means University researchers
are pressured to publish their discoveries quickly to get promoted. This can be detrimental to the
chances of securing patents and pursuing commercial outcomes. Those that do follow a commercial
route find that the pressure of meeting teaching and research commitments leaves little time to
provide technical support for the commercialisation process.
Scenario 3.2 –the University’s perspective: Universities often find it difficult to justify investment in
business engagement and commercialisation. Typically most of their funding is dependent on
meeting teaching and research objectives. PreSeed Accelerator Funding (PreSeed) is one of the few
funding mechanisms available to Universities that is specifically targeted at generating licences and
start-ups. However, this is only $5.3M per year and must be matched with other funding.
Scenario 3.3 –the CRI’s perspective: PreSeed is one of the few funding mechanisms available to CRIs
that supports commercialisation of technologies in areas outside of their core purpose or through a
start-up avenue. However, it must be matched with other funding which can be challenging if the
technology is too early stage for businesses to invest.
The research system is clearly a system that responds to drivers and metrics. The PBRF system has
been successful at driving university researchers to research excellence and more publications. Core
funding for crown research institutes has clearly directed their researchers to focus on deep
engagement, albeit with a relatively narrow group of key organisations in their target sectors.
Incentives for researchers to pursue deep business relationships, IP licencing and start-up
opportunities need not come at the expense of quality teaching, research or publication. In fact
commercial activities are usually synergistic with greater research outcomes. Reviews of the PRBF
system have shown that a greater focus on publications has not compromised teaching effort.
These incentives need to be considered carefully. For example, a recent PBRF review suggested
including commercial returns to a PRO as part of the scoring system. Such a driver makes sense for
an individual researcher, but can often work against other objectives such as encouraging
collaboration between PROs and maximising economic returns to New Zealand. Other drivers, such
as counting patents, can place pressure on research organisations to pursue costly patents that have
questionable value.
Aug-14
Page 9
Scenario 3.4 – The Smart Ideas funding is a step in the right direction to support more deliverydriven research and encourage more business engagement. However, aspects of this programme
limit its impact. Encouraging early industry investment can result in intellectual property rights
arrangements that stifle future efforts by research organisations to create economic benefits for
New Zealand. With only a 10% chance of securing funding, a huge amount of resources are wasted
on unsuccessful applications and the low success rate means businesses are reluctant to make
meaningful commitments.
Scenario 3.5 – The PreSeed Accelerator Fund (PreSeed) – PreSeed is one of the few tools that sits at
a critical point at the end of the development lifecycle, enabling research discoveries to be
transformed into “investor ready” opportunities for the private sector. Many research organisations
are dependent on PreSeed to pursue commercial opportunities and recent analysis has shown that
the impact of this comparatively small fund has been substantial5. The challenge with PreSeed is the
need for research organisations to commit 50% matching funding from either business investment
or internal resources.
It is worth noting that research grants typically require no matching funding, technology incubators
require 25% matching funding and PreSeed requires 50% matching funding. This is despite the fact
that PreSeed is an earlier higher risk intervention than the technology incubators are targeting. The
need to find the matching 50% acts as a barrier to commercialisation activities and, in particular, a
barrier to recruiting external expertise to support commercial activities.
5
Draft historic PSAF report on aggregated figures – Submitted by KiwiNet to MBIE on 31st January 2014.
Aug-14
Page 10
Recommendation 5 - Develop flexible, on-demand applied research grants that are available to
respond to innovation opportunities as they arise, at the right time, with the right amount of
funding.
5.1 – Right time
Create a version of the Smart Ideas funding that can be made available on an “on demand” basis.
Currently Smart Ideas is substantially oversubscribed and the transaction costs of submitting
multiple applications are very high for research organisations. Too much of the science system is
distracted for long periods of time working on proposals and securing business commitments for
proposals that do not get accepted.
5.2 – Right amount
Provide more allocations of a lower value (e.g. $100k) while setting a higher standard for
proposals to get more substantial funding (e.g. $1m). Smaller grants would be designed to carry
out early stage prototyping and market validation that would create a stronger case for larger
grants at a later date. Applicants should be able to get concrete feedback to help them improve
the quality of their proposals. The PreSeed fund has been managed in this way with good results.
Recommendation 6 - You get what you measure
Set up an alternative metrics system (separate from PBRF so that it does not conflict) that
measures the level of business engagement and economic outcomes of researchers and research
organisations. Create a comprehensive portfolio of metrics for the types of business engagement
and economic outcomes that the government seeks.
Examples of new metrics that could be used could include:


Depth of engagement – perhaps by measuring student internships, time spent by
researchers working onsite in companies.
Successful translation of research projects to PreSeed, Technology Incubators, or Business
Grants.
Recommendation 7 - Making PreSeed Accelerator Funding more accessible for research
organisations
Review the level of co-investment required for PreSeed, considering the consistency with new and
recently changed funds such as Technology Incubator Funding. A more appropriate level of
matching funding for PreSeed could create a greater incentive for many research organisations to
pursue commercial applications.
A reduced co-funding requirement, below 50%, could be trailed for 18 months. We are proposing
that this could be done without necessarily increasing total devolved allocations. Those
contractors that participate would then be required to demonstrate whether this increases the
quality of outcomes.
Aug-14
Page 11
22 August 2014
To whom it may concern
Email: [email protected]
NZMSS Submission on MBIE’s draft National Statement of Science
Investment
This submission is made by the New Zealand Marine Sciences Society council, on behalf
of the New Zealand Marine Sciences Society (NZMSS), a professional body of New
Zealand’s marine scientists that is affiliated to the Royal Society of New Zealand.
NZMSS has provided comment in response to the questions posed at the end of the draft
National Statement of Science Investment. We are pleased to read that the government
is planning to increase expenditure in science over the coming decade, and to note that
the marine related Science Challenge will receive a reasonable injection of funding.
However, we also believe that the draft National Statement of Science Investment
provides insufficient evidence of strategic thinking or direction to guide the science
community on what the government seeks from the science system, or, what the
priorities are. In our view, there is very little here that is new. It is our view that the
amount of funding for marine science (including survey work and monitoring) for the
public good has not kept pace with the stated intentions around development of the
marine economy within environmental constraints, concepts of sustainability and
ecosystem approaches. NZMSS contends that New Zealand needs to pay attention to
how its economic activities, research planning and baseline data collection to protect
our reputation match up. We suspect that the funding indicated for the marine –based
science challenge will fall far short of the mark.
The context that underpins the relationship between different types of funding remains
unclear, and the rate of churn and changes has been so high in the last 3-4 years that it
makes it somewhat difficult to engage in a debate about how to improve such
relationships in an informed manner. The Council has however attempted to provide
considered and rational feedback in response to the questions posed by MBIE.
The aims of our Society include encouraging and assisting marine research in New
Zealand, and the provision of evidence-based comment management of marine
resources. The Society has more than 260 scientists, managers, policy makers, and
students working in all aspects of marine science in New Zealand and overseas. Every
year we hold a conference which provides opportunities for members to present their
latest research findings and to network. Our members, therefore, have a wide range of
views and experiences on science related issues, including the use of marine reserves
for conservation purposes.
1
The Society’s submission by the Council is attached. We welcome the opportunity to
comment on the draft Statement and are happy to provide further information on our
submission if required.
Yours sincerely
Dr Mary Livingston
Immediate Past President
New Zealand Marine Sciences Society Council
Email contact
2
NZMSS Submission on the draft National Statement of Science
Investment 22 August 2014
A. Background information about NZMSS
The New Zealand Marine Sciences Society, known as “NZMSS”, was formed in 1960 as a
constituent the Royal Society of New Zealand, to encourage and assist marine science
and related research across a wide range of disciplines in New Zealand and to foster
communication among those with an interest in marine science.
NZMSS is a non-profit organization that provides access to and within the marine
science community and identifies emerging issues through annual conferences, annual
reviews, a listserve and this website. NZMSS membership covers all aspects of scientific
interest in the marine environment and extends to the uptake of science in marine
policy, resource management, conservation and the marine business sector. We speak
for members of the society on matters of interest on marine research in New Zealand
and we engage with other scientific societies as appropriate.
Further details about NZMSS, including the Society’s objectives, can be found our
website: www.nzmss.org
B. NZMSS response to the draft Statement questions:
Our submission is consistent with the Royal Society of New Zealand Code of Ethics and
Rules, in particular principals 2.1 Integrity and professionalism, 4.1 Compliance with
the law and relevant standards, and 10.1 Protection of the environment
(www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/about/code.
The submission below follows the question format provided by MBIE in the draft
National Statement. NZMSS responses are in italics.
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in
science?
NZMSS: The overall balance of government investment in science is very difficult to
assess as the indications about the type of science being funded (e.g. primary industry;
health) are too high level to determine whether or not this statement of science
investment priorities is in meaningful areas or knowledge gaps that need to be filled.
For example, it is almost impossible to determine how much investment is planned for
marine science or what priority it holds. Several areas are identified in the BGA for
economic growth including the marine economy, however, they are not identified in
this document.
There seems to be almost no accountability for science investment between MBIE and
TEC as a whole, and no strategic context for either of these pots of quite substantial
funding. The high level goals of TEC funding for research and MBIE funding appear to
be merging as both appear to be more mission led than discovery science. This could
prove to be a costly mistake for New Zealand. We need to be clear what we want our
universities to achieve through their teaching and academic curriculum; and also our
3
CRIs and other quasi-government organisations. It also needs to be clear as to whether
or not MBIE wants to encourage industries to set themselves up as “research
providers” in their own right, or form partnerships with established science institutes.
In particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more
contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why?
NZMSS: What is it that the government is actually trying to balance? Surely the areas
of research, research infrastructure and systems that are required to enable NZ to use
and develop its science capability to effect over the next 20 years need to be defined.
This document states that a mix of contestable and stable funding is required, however,
the goals are not actually articulated.
b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities,
independent research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that
balance be and why?
NZMSS: The balance of funding can change according to national priorities. Clarity
around the role of academic institutes, applied and private institutes with respect to
achieving these goals. The priorities need to be identified at a sufficiently meaningful
level.
In order to assess this point in a meaningful manner, it is important to know the level
of knowledge exchange between agencies expected and enforced by government. In
many cases it makes scientific sense to fund a particular agency for an area of science
where they hold the highest skill levels. However, if the science outcomes (including
data) are not shared with other agencies, the contribution to meeting national
priorities can be minimal. In fact, in reality the reluctance of many agencies to share
knowledge can result in additional funding as often almost identical pieces of work are
commissioned by different agencies.
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, missionand industry-led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
NZMSS: Within the marine sector it is difficult to determine what the current balance
is. This document does not provide it. Our experience is that that strategic direction in
marine research for the country is almost completely absent among each of these types
of research. Investigator-led research is not at all well supported and the unanswered
questions are largely unarticulated. The questions under mission led research are
better formulated because government departments purchase the research to meet
legislative responsibilities and management objectives. They do not, however, span
interdisciplinary or cross sector needs very well at all. Industry-led research is still
small change in New Zealand, particularly in marine areas. If industry could be
benefitting from value added research in for example fish products, why aren’t they
doing it? Much of the industry mindset seems to be about keeping research costs to a
minimum. This attitude is understandable as they have to answer to their
shareholders, however it makes for a very low potential for real gains in this area.
4
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing
in science that are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If
there are parts that are under-emphasised and need to grow, can you identify
other parts of the system that are less important, that could be scaled back
over time?
NZMSS: The scale and scope of the Governments objectives and system for investing in
science as articulated in the statement suggests “the main objective for Government’s
investment in science is that it supports a transformative system that delivers to New
Zealand’s economic, social, environmental and cultural needs” with the following
priorities given in the draft Statement. We have commented on each one separately:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
NZMSS contends that there is nothing new or transformative about this statement
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with the highest potential for
impact for the benefit of New Zealand
NZMSS contends that while signalling that scientific research needs to be more
“useful and relevant”, again, this is nothing new or transformative. It is unlikely
that this approach will lead to risk taking or creative thinking that will benefit New
Zealand. Without identifying what the most pressing needs are ,or showing how
MBIE and TEC funding works, it is unhelpful.
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
NZMSS contends that this sounds good but is substantially weakened by the small
print “where funds and opportunities are available”. The argument that
“Investment in science, both by government and by industry, leads to improved
economic, social and environmental outcomes, and increased investment will help
us achieve those goals more quickly, efficiently and sustainably” has no substance
because the level of research and information that NZ needs to achieve its goals are
not articulated.
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
“We need to deliver an optimal mix of targeted investments that concentrate in priority
areas that will maximise benefit to all New Zealand”.
NZMSS questions the meaning of this statement. It is just the same as the
aspirational goal at the start of the document?
Possible priorities are given as:
“pursue ongoing productivity gains from the primary sector.
›› high-value manufacturing and information and communications technology
›› health care and social services
›› high-value processed primary products
›› environmental innovation for sustainable production and biodiversity protection”
NZMSS contends that none of these priorities are anything new. There needs to be
some sort of analysis to show why these are considered priorities over the next 20
years.
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
NZMSS wants to know what is meant by industry-led research and what Govt can
actually do to change industry thinking. It all very well to say we have low
5
investment compared to the OECD countries, but generally NZ has a very different
economic base than most of them.
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
NZMSS contends that very little progress has been made on this to date. What is in
it for Maori? The reality for most research projects is that Matauranga Maori, at
best, is largely appears to be an add-on to “western science” projects. What is
needed instead is a dedicated focus on the integration of the two perspectives by
dedicated professionals in that field, not by scientists solely trained in conducting
western science.
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen
the capacity of our science system to benefit New Zealanders
NZMSS wants to see what this means and for MBIE to demonstrate that it is even
aware of the extent to which this already occurs. We would like to see some real
money made available for cofunding joint initiatives between countries, not just
meetings.
The aspiration and directional changes proposed in this document, as well as the
overall science investment outlook, boil down to do more of the same with no
strategic analysis, futures seeking work or horizon scanning.
3. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system
perform, both individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to
improve their performance? If so, how?
NZMSS contends that performance measures are not publicly available, other than the
amount invested is small compared with other OECD countries. There is little strategic
thinking on how to use state assets, such as RV Tangaroa, to address important knowledge
deficits about our oceans, and an unwillingness to provide sufficient and reliable support
for environmental research to address these knowledge gaps. This could be fixed by
sticking to long term programmes such as Ocean Survey 20/20 and funding them
effectively so that they can achieve their goals.
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
NZMSS considers that to answer this question, public research funding priorities need to
be more clearly articulated.
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and
innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
NZMSS respectfully suggests that a starting point might be to see what other countries do
in this regard. We don’t appear to do any of it!
6. Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system
that are particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring
performance?
6
NZMSS contends that for any benchmarking or monitoring it is critical that “sliding
baselines” are avoided. It is not unusual to see such exercises where parameters used
change over time or baseline information is updated to represent current performance in
a better light.
7. To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies
and processes, and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address
critical problems either in the science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What
changes could be made to ensure those problems are being addressed?
NZMSS contends that critical problems are not being addressed. Strategic thinking is
almost absent from marine science; government has not been willing to invest on a long
enough time scale to complete systematic tasks such as mapping the coast and ocean; NZ
institutes are constantly being revamped and restructured; overarching oceans policy is
missing; the universities are not integrated into issues of the day. Asking them to better
align their priorities to answer pressing issues through MBIE and TEC funding will not
necessarily achieve what is sought as the erosion of funding towards academic excellence,
scientific independence and investigator-led research will be perceived as a major threat
to current practice.
8. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together?
Could they be made to work together more coherently?
NZMSS respectfully suggests that MBIE does not talk across government or across
universities sufficiently frequently to allow for strategic thinking in science systems to
address issues and information gaps alongside investigator-led research to evolve. If so,
how? Government needs to have a vision of what New Zealand seeks from its science
system, and a mechanism for using all the different facets of our science system to achieve
it. Do we have enough investment mechanisms, or too many? Probably enough
mechanisms, but no oversight of how they deliver on overall goals and progress and how
they interlink.
9. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and
cooperation? How well do existing mechanisms support this objective? What
policy changes or new mechanisms could advance this goal?
NZMSS; New Zealand needs some mechanisms for allowing leveraging funding that fit
with NZ goals
10. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of
investment in science?
NZMSS contends that the government needs to invest in clear strategic thinking and clear
monitoring of spend and achievements, including our emerging and future scientists. The
proportion and absolute value of contestable funding has significantly reduced. This makes the
development of new ideas, new research areas and teams difficult. MBIE’s indicated future directions
(p.47) and the ability to refresh, support emerging opportunities or areas which are not covered in
CRI core funding or the NSCs remains imperative. Preserve opportunities for young researchers to
independently gain science funding. Smart Ideas are an excellent vehicle, albeit oversubscribed, and
more of these Smart Ideas going from Phase 1 to Phase 2 would be sensible.
7
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION
Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science
investment. These are:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for
impact for the benefit of New Zealand
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the
capacity of our science system to benefit New Zealand.
These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. Your
feedback might consider the following questions.
QUESTIONS ON THE CHANGES IN DIRECTION PROPOSED IN THIS STATEMENT:
11. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the
relevance and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For
example, should investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments,
across most mechanisms, have a sound pathway to impact and application, even if
long term?
NZMSS comment: Many of these things cannot be predicted and lead to stifled innovation
and creativity, so, no!
12. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a
stronger contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
NZMSS: No
a. If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you
direct shifts in our science investments?
NZMSS response:To the areas of the environment that are potentially compromised
by business development to obtain a better understanding of cause and effect of
environmental decline; science infrastructure ie essential scientific services need to
be fully supported, such as taxonomic and systematic; specimen collections,
repeated survey and monitoring work; data access, database building, to name but
a few.
b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would
you place as priorities for our science investments?
NZMSS comment: A high proportion of investment already goes into this. Effectively
the govt is subsidising industry. Our view is that increasing the public spend even
further to prop up industry is not warranted at this stage.
13. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our
science investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken
to date? What is the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and
competition?
8
NZMSS comment: Collaboration is just one of many mechanisms that has a role in getting
satisfactory science outcomes for NZ. Information sharing and strategic thinking are
equally important.
A greater emphasis on collaboration around basic knowledge development (e.g. data
collection, mapping, understanding scientific principles and ecosystem connections)
should be given. This basic knowledge could then form an agreed basis for different
uses/applications, some of which might be competitive. At the moment too much emphasis
is placed on the competitive side of science funding and too little on the opportunities for
collaboration. New Zealand is too small to have different agencies gathering the same
data in the marine area. Much of the current disputes around environmental effects stem
from disagreements among experts on basic knowledge. Emphasis on developing mutually
agreed platforms of core information and data would significantly improve our ability to
resolve such disputes. Initiatives such as LAWA (data storage, visualisation and sharing)
are a great help in this space but more investment should be made available for data
collection as well.
14. How might the current set-up of New Zealand’s research institutions either
encourage or discourage across-research institution collaborations, international
researcher collaborations, or user collaborations?
NZMSS comment: with all due respect the “current set-up” is so confused and seems to be
changing on a regular basis that it is almost impossible to answer this question. There is
not any summary anywhere that clearly sets out what the current set up is or how they
link together.
15. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science
investments? What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
NZMSS comment: Knowledge or end users should be more involved in science planning and
investment decisions on projects that claim to be of benefit for these end users. For
example, phrases such as “this will support policy development and resource management”
are used too liberally by science providers without actually engaging with the policy
developers or resource managers to find out what their needs are. This results in poor
uptake of science, and endless debates about the inability of scientists to communicate,
and the apparent lack of engagement by government decision-makers. Theseproblems are
further exacerbated in some situations by the lack of contractual requirements in funding
agreements to share information/outcomes/data with policy developers and/or resource
managers.
16. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general
direction of change?
NZMSS: the changes are not in fact that clear. While longer time frames for projects and
funding may improve things, it is hardly a new idea (eg OBIs). Collaboration is good where
appropriate, but funding is so tight for marine research that the competitiveness still
remains and can hamper progress on nationally important goals. Thought needs to be
more clearly given to what the purpose of science is in NZ. It should not only be about
applied science and enabling industry, or even protecting the environment. It is also about
scientific investigation, curiosity, wellbeing, culture and being able to contribute to global
discussions about the wellbeing of the planet. It is also about maintaining or excelling in
9
New Zealand’s intellectual contribution to the world’s conversation on scientific issues.
This notion is almost completely absent from the document.
17. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we
fund?
NZMSS suggests that MBIE get some clear strategic direction into it and fund it properly
over a sustained period of time.
18. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and
industry-led research? If so, how?
NZMSS view: NO. Scientific research should follow a rigorous discipline and assessment
process regardless of the end use. Otherwise, it cannot be used as evidence for decisionmaking.
19. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our
research community and research-active companies?
NZMSS: Publicise it positively. Fund it and it will happen
FEEDBACK ON STRUCTURE OF MBIE SECTOR-SPECIFIC RESEARCH FUNDS
We want to refine the funding architecture so that it is best suited to meet New
Zealand’s science needs into the future. We want to know whether funding tools are
appropriate to deliver on the NSSI objectives, and in particular whether further reforms
to, and simplification of, sector-specific funds are necessary. This draft Statement
proposes work to:
›› consider the role of ‘contest’ in refreshing and supporting emerging opportunities
now that we have a significant proportion of Vote Science and Innovation funds
allocated to long-term, strategic investments via CRI core funding and the National
Science Challenges
›› increase flexibility and ease of operation by having fewer, larger funding mechanisms,
and more flexible use of mechanisms to adjust the degree of contestability of funding.
We will aim to reduce and minimise compliance costs in doing so ›› increase the focus of
the funds on research with direct relevance to the most pressing industry,
environmental and social needs
›› implement measures to place greater emphasis on impact in assessment of
applications, new contracts and existing contracts, including potentially separating
assessment of impact from assessment of quality of science, as per the Irish model.
Where possible, emphasis should be on investment in sectors of future growth, value,
and critical need.
YOUR FEEDBACK ON THESE MATTERS MIGHT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS:
20. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so what
direction of change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
10
a. the multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of
funds and the complexity of funds
NZMSS view: There seems to be a multiplicity of funds for industry and economic
outcomes, but only one for the environment which is not only a very small pot of funding,
but cannot possibly address the needs for the marine environment. Marine research has
suffered from gross under investment over the last 40 years, yet it is seen as the big
economic frontier of the immediate future. We contend that there is something awry in the
thinking here.
b. the accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI,
established or new entrants into the system
NZMSS query: New entrants are who? Consultants (ex CRI or university folk making large
salaries) and industry (often not trained scientists and with a very strong different drivers)
c. the sector-based nature of funding tools
NZMSS comment: The only example we can think of is fisheries research that is largely
cost-recovered from industry. One might assume that this would include the full range of
research that relates to wildfish fishstocks, including ecosystem services, biodiversity,
ecosystem function, fish biology and physiology, climate change and so on. In reality the
only part that is fully cost recovered is routine crank handle biomass surveys and stock
assessment. The environmental effects of fishing research is partly cost-recovered. The
research needed for developing concepts like “ecosystem approaches” or ecosystem
function, ecological limits, climate change and ocean acidification, oceanography,
deepwater ecosystems, taxonomy are are crown funded from a very small budget that has
been declining steadily. These issues do not appear in MBIE’s science statement or any
other plan. This means that the developmental side of fisheries research does not get
funded, and the environmental information required at a national scale is not collected.
d. the length of funding allocation
NZMSS: comment: A mix of short and long term funding is fine. The strategic setting needs
to be identified to determine what is needed. It is absent from this document.
e. the form and processes of peer review
NZMSS comment: peer review of science is a slow process that needs to be robust for it to
be meaningful and for results to be used as sound evidence for decision making. Part of the
robustness is to conduct peer review by the most relevant people. In many cases this will be
researchers but in cases of applied science this should also include end users.
f. the relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for
impact, past performance and the quality of the research proposal and research
team.
NZMSS suspects that the potential for impact cannot be foreseen, and that the relevance of
the work may not be understood if the evaluation panels have the wrong mix of scientists
or expertise on them. There are already many examples of this. END
11
National Statement of Science Investments:
Submission from Universities New Zealand
Summary
Universities New Zealand (Universities NZ) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the
draft National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI). We believe that the NSSI
provides a good overview of all the areas where the Government provides targeted
investment into the New Zealand science system.
The draft NSSI is currently silent on a number of other research-related outputs and
outcomes generated through the university system that play an important part in the
wider research system. These include the production of research-capable graduates and
the professional development of new academic researchers.
This paper outlines the role university research has in the wider research system and
identifies some areas of concern that should be picked up in the next version of the
NSSI.
This submission draws the following conclusions:
1. Integrated within the research categories of ‘investigator-led’, ‘mission-led’ and
‘industry-led’, should be added a fourth category, ‘education-led’.
2. The proposed NSSI indicators for measuring outcomes from investment in science
are all credible, but there are too many of them and there would be benefit in
focussing on a smaller number.
3. The science system would be more efficient with a smaller number of contestable
funds, managing a greater pool of funding than is currently the case. The
contestable funds need to have more funding available for targeted basic
research and investigator-led research.
4. There should be targeted support to new and emerging researchers to help them
and the students they supervise to quickly and effectively establish the industry
and end-user contacts and research profiles that will support their career, be it
within or outside academia.
5. Closer alignment between universities and CRIs will create opportunities to
increase the production of high quality relevant research while reducing
duplication of effort and infrastructure.
Background
This submission is made by Universities New Zealand – Te Pōkai Tara (Universities NZ)
in response to the Draft National Statement of Science Investments issued in May 2014.
Universities NZ is the operating name of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee,
a body established under Part 19 of the Education Act 1989. It has statutory
responsibilities for university quality assurance, the approval and accreditation of
university academic programmes, entrance to universities, and scholarships. It also
1
represents the interests of the universities on a wide range of other matters, such as
education and research policies.
A number of universities will be lodging submissions on particular aspects of the
Statement and while this submission looks at some of those issues it concentrates on
describing the environment in which universities operate and provides an overview of
their research activities and the role they play in the New Zealand research sector.
Part A – Context & Profile of University Research
Environment for University Research
University research activity can be characterised as having three broad objectives. It:
1. Is a vital part of the education system’s ability to deliver research-informed
teaching and to produce research-capable graduates and this country’s future
researchers.
2. Is a key part of the nation’s wider research and innovation ecosystem, where
knowledge transfer and absorption into society and the economy is a key aim.
3. Plays a self-reinforcing role in creating a strong national university system, by
underpinning the international profile and reputation that makes it possible for
New Zealand universities to compete for the best staff and students
internationally.
Context and Profile of University Sector Research
Before commenting on the NSSI and the issues of concern to the universities it is
important to have an understanding of university research and the context in which it
operates.
There are three main research sectors in New Zealand. These are the private sector, the
government and the universities. According to the 2012 R&D survey conducted by
Statistics New Zealand research expenditure in New Zealand was $2.6 billion, with the
largest contribution coming from the private sector.
Sector
Business
Government
Universities
TOTAL
2006
$m
760
473
593
1,826
2008
$m
923
584
653
2,161
2010
$m
971
615
802
2,388
2012
$m
1193
596
836
2,625
% Growth
2006-12
57%
26%
41%
44%
Note: prior to 2010 university commercialisation data was recorded under the business sector
While the R&D survey does not report CRIs details separately, estimates are that they
account for 85-90% of the government sector’s research. It should also be noted that
the government is also a major source of research funds for the universities and the
private sector. Of the $2,625 million mentioned above, $1,087 million came from the
government.
Universities have three main sources of research funding: (1) government research
purchasing agencies contracting for specific pieces of research; (2) funds such as that
available through the CoREs and the PBRF; and (3) their own resources – which may
2
include a reallocation of untargeted government funds. These are set out in the
following table which show three different views of university research-related funding.
Source: Statistics NZ 2012 R&D survey)
University R&D funding from external sources
a. Centres of Research Excellence
b. Government research purchase agencies
c. Other central government departments, ministries
d. Local government
e. Other NZ tertiary education providers
f. Charitable trusts
g. Private sector (NZ)
h. CRIs
i. Other
j. Research funding from abroad
Total University research funding from external sources
Note that this does not include PBRF funding.
$ Million
54.6
186.7
67.5
2.1
27.8
21.2
33.4
19.8
5.9
29.1
448.2
R&D expenditure By Source
k. General University Funds
l. Other internal funds (incl students fees & other
universities)
m. Research contracts (Government = a+b+c+d+h)
n. Business (=g)
o. Overseas (=j)
p. Others (=f+i)
Total Source
$ Million
177.0
Total
q.
r.
Total
Note:
$ Million
414.1
420.4
834.5
R&D Expenditure
Internal R&D expenditure (=k+l)
External R&D expenditure (=m+n+o+p)
R&D expenditure
Some PBRF monies are allocated under lines k and l
237.1
330.7
33.5
29.1
27.1
834.5
As can be seen from the tables above, either directly through research contracts, or
indirectly through capability funding, the government is the source of the majority of
funds used for research in the university sector. However, the universities also use nongovernment sources to support research activities. This can be in the form of support
for research-related teaching activities or through awards made by a university’s
research committee for specific research projects.
The majority of Government funding comes through several of the lines above and the
significant ones are now considered in turn.
Government research purchase agencies
The main sources of this funding are the contestable funds administered by MBIE, the
Health Research Council (close to $80 million a year) and the Marsden Fund ($50
million). All funds are heavily oversubscribed and could fund more research without any
reduction in quality. For example, in 2013, the Marsden Fund received 1157 preliminary
proposals. Of the 229 that were assessed as meeting the required excellence standard,
funding meant that only 109 were eventually funded.
3
In the 2014/15 year contestable funding was well down on the $200-300 million
available ten years ago. It is acknowledged that the government is aware of the
importance of maintaining a degree of competitive funding and that in Budget 2014 it
injected a further $57 million over three years starting in 2015/16 and that overall
funding for science has grown 60% since 2007/08. Indications are that it will continue
to grow, although the exact amounts will not become clear until future Budgets are
announced.
However, of concern to the universities is that while there has been a reduction in the
size of the contestable pool there has not been a corresponding reduction in the number
of funds available, with the result that much time can be spent on bidding, either for
relatively small amounts of money or on bids that are unsuccessful.
The tightness of contestable funding creates difficulties for universities trying to develop
the skills of students or young academics as the majority of remaining funds tend to be
directed to proven researchers.
Other central government departments such as Health, Environment, Education, Justice
and Social Development contract for non-RS&T research. The total sums involved are
typically smaller than those under Vote Science and Innovation.
Centres of Research Excellence
The Centres of Research Excellence (CoREs) funds are all hosted by a university and all
universities participate in at least one CoRE – either as a host or as a partner. This has
helped to encourage the development of excellent tertiary education-based research that
is collaborative, strategically focused and creating significant knowledge transfer
activities.
The CoREs are important for university research as vehicles that encourage and support
collaboration. While some academics prefer to work in isolation, for most an important
factor is the ability to discuss ideas with colleagues and to learn from their experiences.
The CoREs, and the National Science Challenges can bring together the best minds in the
country in the cause of the advancement of the particular discipline. At the same time, a
degree of competition between researchers and research providers is also healthy as it
can lead to a degree of rivalry to produce the best research.
The key is in finding the right balance.
The PBRF and research
In 2002 the government introduced the Performance-Based Research Fund. It has had a
range of consistent aims since it was established. These include; increasing the average
quality of research, ensuring that research continued to underpin the research strength
of the tertiary education sector, as well as ensuring that funding is available for
postgraduate students and new researchers.
Initial funding for the PBRF involved the transfer into the fund of the former research
degree top-ups, supplemented by several Budget allocations. The research degree topups were not new funds but rather were existing university revenues already committed
to existing costs, and in particular the payment of staff salaries. When the transfer was
completed it is estimated that of the $230 million available that year, $189.6 million was
due to the research top-ups. The top-ups were essentially to support teaching and not to
fund specific research activities.
4
This situation has continued, and while some of the PBRF is allocated towards specific
pieces of research (through internal mechanisms), the bulk of PBRF monies are used to
maintain general capabilities by supporting teaching activities at degree and
postgraduate level.
The PBRF has been effective at focussing universities on improving the quality of
university research. This is indicated by the following table showing PBRF results over
the three evaluation rounds to date.
Category
2003
2006
2012
A
B
A or B
423
1,692
2,115
597
2,012
2,609
831
2,475
3,306
Change
2003 – 2012
96%
46%
56%
C or C (NE)
Total FTE
2,173
4,288
2,449
5,058
2,640
5,946
21%
42%
C
C (NE)
2,173
1,749
700
1,782
858
To achieve an A an academic’s research has to considered to be of an international
standard. As fewer than 10% of academics receive an A (not all academic staff take part
in the PBRF), achieving this grade is seen as something to aspire to and encourages
academics to put more effort into their research. A further point of interest is that
between the first and third rounds of the PBRF the number of academics receiving an A
grew at a faster rate than that for all the other categories.
However, research quality as measured by the PBRF looks not just at an academic’s
output of journals and books but at a wide range of activities such as invitations to
present at conferences and seminars, supervision of PhD students and commercialisation
activities such as consulting and advisory work. Many of the researchers highly rated by
the PBRF are also successful in commercialisation activities and are highly regarded by
those outside of academia for their blend of theoretical and practical skills.
While the PBRF looks at the quality of a researcher’s outputs, the quantity is not directly
measured, although a certain (unspecified) number of outputs will be expected for an A
or B grade. It is not a coincidence that there has been a sharp rise in the number of
refereed articles produced by university staff since the introduction of the PBRF, as can
be seen in the graph on the following page. In contrast publication output from CRI
staff, who do not have the same PBRF incentive and have a substantially lower output
(hence the different scales for the two graphs), has grown at a more gentle pace.
5
Other sources of funding
There is also a range of other sources of domestic funding for the universities, including
subcontracts from the CRIs and other TEIs (principally universities), contracts from
charitable trusts and industry and from local government. These contracts are typically
small.
Types of university research
Internationally research is usually classified as either basic (sometime split into
untargeted and targeted), applied or experimental development:
6
•
Basic research is experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire
new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts,
without any particular application or use in view.
Targeted basic research is
theoretical research undertaken in response to or focused on a strategic need.
•
Applied research is also original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new
knowledge. It is, however, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or
objective.
•
Experimental development is systematic work, drawing on existing knowledge
gained from research and/or practical experience, which is directed to producing new
materials, products or devices, to installing new processes, systems and services, or
to improving substantially those already produced or installed.
These terms are internationally recognised and are how universities and other players in
the New Zealand research environment report their research efforts to Government.
All three areas inform each other and a significant proportion of research can sit across
two or more categories or can start in one category and end up in another. For
example; a researcher working with batteries and methods of storing energy might
accidentally develop a new battery which could be utilized as a commercial product.
The NSSI uses the terms investigator-led, mission-led and industry-led which overlap
but serve a different purpose.
These terms are useful classifications for funding
purposes. The classifications of investigator-led, mission-led and industry-led indicate
who decides what happens to the research money:
•
Investigator = the researcher,
•
Mission = whoever is setting the mission (usually Government), and
•
Industry = industry or the end-user.
For example, Government may not want to invest in basic research, but may want to
invest in investigator-led research that has elements of basic research that may lead to
industrial applications – per the example of research into batteries above.
These descriptors, while being appropriate for many research organisations, such as the
CRIs, do not adequately describe the research activities of the universities, where
although the majority of the research is investigator-led, much of it is mission driven. In
addition, as well as engaging in investigator-, mission- and industry-led research,
university research also has an important education component. In line with the NSSI
terminology, this could be called education-led research.
While this education-led research may yield measurable outputs its main purpose is to
instil in students the disciplines that will make them valuable researchers, not just during
the course of their studies but in their chosen careers. The NSSI recognises the
importance of the scientific workforce but most of this attention is focused on those
either engaged in PhD studies or in the early stages of their careers or. While support
for these groups is welcomed, they represent only a small proportion of the academic
and student workforce and it is important that the remaining students who will provide
the backbone of the scientific workforce (and the research workforce in general) are fully
supported during their time at university through adequate funding for research-based
teaching.
7
Role of basic research
While only a quarter of the research carried out in New Zealand is classified as basic
research, it accounts for nearly half of that carried out in the universities. Although it
does not feature prominently in the research activities of the private sector and the CRIs
(33%), basic research fulfils an important role as in a number of the physical sciences in
particular it underpins the applied and experimental research carried out in other
jurisdictions or times.
For example, chemical research thirty years ago into the properties of certain peptides
has led to the development of drugs used in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. And
even when research “goes wrong” there can be unexpected benefits, the often used
example being the development of penicillin after mould attacked a sample being used in
an experiment.
Of course not all research has a commercial application but that does not mean that it
does not make an important contribution to society. A good example is medical research
where, while there have been commercial successes, the majority of research does not
make a financial return and in fact even when deemed to be a success some of it can
result in additional costs for society in the form of the creation of new treatments.
However, in such cases society usually considers the health benefits, for example, to
justify the extra monetary costs. Research that leads to decreases in heart disease,
increases in cancer survival rates and new vaccines may not earn the research
institutions anything but benefit society through a fitter population. And a healthier
society is one that is able to make a stronger contribution to economic development.
Social research can lead to greater happiness or improved well-being and is just as
important as a newer and cheaper way of making something. A better informed
population is one that is able to better understand the state of the world and to be able
to make a contribution to society’s advancement. Unfortunately all too often the social
sciences are overlooked as the contribution they make is harder to understand and
assess.
Undertaking basic research also fits in with the requirements of universities as set out in
the Education Act, that their teaching and research are closely interdependent; engaging
in research with no apparent immediate applications can prove invaluable in the long run
when it is part of the education of an emerging researcher as well as because it
underpins many new technologies. The significant amount of basic work undertaken in
the universities also reflects the fact that participating in basic research is a critical part
of the education universities provide for students – developing the critical knowledge and
skills expected from research-led teaching.
As well as helping to train students for a wide range of careers (whether or not as
researchers), basic research builds the skills of established researchers. To solve current
problems faced by society, researchers need a solid background in their discipline, built
by working on the basics. The breadth of knowledge acquired through basic research
makes academics highly sought after as commentators on current issues facing society.
The key to a well-functioning research environment is having the ability to take research
from the basic stage to the applied stage, either in the research institution or in the
enterprise attempting to advance and commercialise the research. Just as important is
feedback from end-users to spark fresh research.
An associated issue is the ability and interest of business to absorb basic research. The
research activities of a number of companies are not so much research as product
development, which can involve marketers just as much as scientists.
8
While the role played by the Marsden Fund in relation to basic research is covered in the
NSSI we do not believe sufficient support is given for basic research and that the NSSI
and subsequent actions need to address this issue. While most research in New Zealand
is of a high standard that enables business to continue to develop, the leaps and bounds
that help to transform an economy come through the application of excellent research of
the type the Marsden Fund seeks to foster.
University Research Personnel
Researchers in the universities cover a wider range of activities than other parts of the
sector, which is not surprising given that those in the university environment range from
18-year olds to senior academics with 50 years’ experience.
According to the 2012 R&D survey there are nearly 29,000 active researchers in New
Zealand, with well over half of them located in the universities. Three-quarters of the
university researchers are post-graduate students, mainly at masters and doctorate
level, while a number are those in the first stages of their career, seeking the experience
that will lead to a permanent position in the academic world. While the research
undertaken by the student researchers may be at a different level from that by staff
members, it nevertheless fulfils a valuable function. Many university research contracts
depend on the input of senior students and the research also provides a training ground
for those who will make up the next generation of researchers.
The tables below show the type of researchers in business, government and the
university sectors.
Occupation FTEs
Researchers
Student researchers
Total researchers
Technicians
Support staff
Total
Business
5,100
Government
1,900
5,100
2,600
1,200
8,800
Source: Statistics NZ 2012 R&D Survey
1,900
Universities
3,100 1
11,000
14,200
Total
10,100
11,000
21,200
1,100
590
3,600
840
1,300
16,300
4,500
3,100
28,700
Student research as part of capability development
The large number of student researchers can be put down to a number of factors.
The increase in the number and depth of jobs in the last decade has meant that in some
areas there is a reduced demand for those with more general skills in favour of a desire
for people with highly specialised and detailed skills and knowledge that is often only
acquired through advanced levels of study. It is clear that students will need to be able
to cope with a completely different work environment just a few years out from
graduation.
The demand for greater research outputs from universities requires an increase in the
number of researchers, often more than the university can provide from staff resources
alone.
In the period 2002 to 2012 the number of researchers, technicians and support staff in
the universities rose 44%. However, during the same period the number of students
The university researcher figure is based on academics spending 30% of their time on research. The higher
figure for research active staff as recorded for the PBRF includes teaching duties.
1
9
engaged in research, either as part of their studies or assisting established researchers
grew by 79%, with a resulting impact on university resources, both in terms of
infrastructure and the availability of supervisors.
The research performed by these students in support of staff members is invaluable, not
just for the particular research project but for the development of the skills set of the
students involved through the provision of a varied research environment, covering all
aspects of research from basic to developmental, which makes them more attractive for
prospective employers, For example, graduate students working on hard problems in
general relativity, quantum chemistry or other mathematically intense basic research
find jobs easily in the ICT industry due to the superior analytical, problem-solving and
computer coding skills they have acquired in the course of their research This is one of
the strengths of the university system and is not replicated in the private sector or in the
CRIs.
Early career researchers
Of the 6000 or so academics with active research profiles in New Zealand universities,
around 500 are post-docs in their first five years of employment and attempting to gain
a permanent position. They typically lack the research history or profile to attract
funding and often struggle to quickly develop the research connections nationally and
internationally. A significant proportion of early-career academic staff research is
therefore done relying mainly on their salary and what funds they can secure from
departmental research budgets. Research outputs are predominantly ‘investigator-led’
and focussed on basic research.
Student and early career researchers are a vital part of university research and we
believe that greater recognition within science policy needs to be accorded to the role
that they play.
Incentives at the organisational and academic researcher levels.
The Tertiary Education Strategy and National Statement of Science Investment identify a
range of areas where the Government wants to improve performance or outcomes.
New Zealand universities recruit a significant proportion of their teaching and research
staff from overseas and follow a business model that is shared by most public
universities internationally. There are some interlinked elements of that business model
that are particularly influential on the research profile of universities.
•
All universities have academics who have significant links to industry and who are
developing high-quality relevant knowledge with end-users. These are more
common in applied disciplines such as engineering and medicine but also apply in
disciplines such as history or English where there are often strong business and
community linkages.
All universities recognise the importance of these
researchers in the context of Government policy and treat them as star
performers with a higher proportion of promotions and resourcing than for other
academics.
•
At the organisational level, universities need to be able to recruit and retain good
academic staff. All academic staff are recruited on their skills in teaching and
research, but their academic discipline and personal competencies then influence
the sort of research they carry out. University incentive systems recognise that
different disciplines can all generate high quality research and deliver researchinformed teaching and produce research capable graduates. They also recognise
10
that some disciplines are more likely to be naturally weighted towards
investigator led research.
In combination, these factors mean that:
1. Universities have clear incentives to support and encourage academics to do work in
areas that align with Government priorities around innovation and knowledge
exchange with industry.
2. Universities also generate significant teaching and research outcomes from
academics that are not collaborating with industry. These academics support wider
objectives such as ensuring New Zealand has a strong education system and is
producing research capable graduates.
University academic staff are a diverse group with a wide range of motivations and
research preferences. There are many that enjoy addressing practical real world
problems and working with end-users to make a difference. Others are motivated by
advancing knowledge and having the esteem of other researchers in their field.
Similarly, many are highly motivated by teaching and developing young people.
Part B - General comment on the National Statement of Science
Investment
Universities NZ is supportive of the broad aims of the Draft National Statement of
Science Investment and looks forward to working with MBIE and other parts of the
sector on implementing measures to make the science system more efficient. To assist
with the process we offer a few general comments, followed by a few more specific one.
The draft Statement sets out a number of objectives for the science system:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
producing excellent science of the highest level;
ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with the highest potential for
impact for the benefit of New Zealand;
committing to continue increasing investment over time;
increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth;
increasing the scale of industry-led research;
continue to implement Vision Mātauranga;
strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity
of our science system to benefit New Zealanders.
Universities NZ supports all of these objectives and believes that it can make a
contribution to each of them.
The universities have particular strengths in the
development of the basic research that underpins most scientific advances and the
education and training of the next generation of scientists and it is pleasing to see that
the Statement affords these areas the recognition they deserve.
Measuring the contribution and impact of university research (and research in general) is
an issue that has exercised many researchers and funders over the years and it is
pleasing to see that the Statement addresses this issue. Earlier in this submission we
illustrated the performance by the universities in terms of publication output. That
graph showed the increase in publications, particularly since the introduction of the
PBRF. Of more relevance is the impact of those publications, as captured by the
following graph, where in recent years New Zealand’s share of global citations has
exceeded our share of publications:
11
Share of world indexed publications and citations – New Zealand tertiary education institutions
0.5%
Publications
Citations
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
2007-2011
2005-2009
2003-2007
2001-2005
1999-2003
1997-2001
1995-1999
1993-1997
1991-1995
1989-1993
1987-1991
1985-1989
1983-1987
1981-1985
0.0%
Source: Thomson Reuters
The draft NSSI suggests a wide range of indicators to measure the outcomes of the
investment in science. While all of them are credible we believe that there are too
many. For the system to work there must be a manageable number, perhaps no more
than half a dozen which should be settled upon after consultation with the sector. If
there are too many indicators there is the risk that attention will be focused on
performance management objectives at the expense of concentrating on scientific
endeavours.
Part C – Settings around Contestable Funding
A key question in the NSSI is whether this country has the right balance between
contestable funding and support for institutions.
At one extreme; large, unspecified, open-ended institutional funding provides security
for researchers and allows for long-term investment in infrastructure. However, it also
locks funding up, inhibits new entrants and may restrict the development of new ideas.
At the other extreme; small, closely prescribed and short term funding reduces
contestability, increases compliance costs, and may restrict research programmes
coming to fruition and realising an outcome.
Competition keeps all groups in the research space focussed on generating the best
proposals and delivering outcomes.
Contestable funds can and do encourage
collaboration and interdisciplinary relationships – leading to the best researchers
collaborating to generate the best ideas. Non-contestable funding on the other hand,
unless directed to do otherwise, reduces the incentives to collaborate as doing so
reduces the funds that can be captured.
New Zealand universities need all of their academic staff to be carrying out high quality
research and research-informed teaching. Universities need to offer a reasonable level
of security of employment and a basic minimum level of research support to be able to
recruit and retain the best staff nationally and internationally. Universities also need to
be able to make the multi-decade investments in the capital infrastructure that supports
research.
12
To do all of this, universities need adequate levels of institutional support. Universities
are already under significant pressure in this area and any reduction in institutional
support would be unwise.
However, universities believe that significant benefits could be achieved by changing
three settings around contestable funds:
1. Reducing the fragmentation of the contestable funding environment and
increasing the funding available for good research.
2. Providing more support to new and emerging researchers,
3. Pursuing more linkages between universities and CRIs
Each is briefly considered in turn
Fragmentation and Funding Levels for Contestable Funds
Each CoRE, National Science Challenge, and Government research fund has its own
overheads, funding pool and processes for evaluating research proposals. Some funds
receive significantly greater numbers of excellent proposals than they can support and,
as previously noted, this has been exacerbated by a reduction in the amount of truly
contestable funding available to researchers over the past decade.
A number of the funds are relatively small, for example Hazards and Infrastructure
Research. While such research is of obvious importance to a country such as New
Zealand and should not be ignored, we believe that fewer funds with more funding and
broader areas of focus will generate better outcomes for science and industry in New
Zealand.
We believe that there needs to be more funding available for targeted basic research and
investigator-led research that underpins research that has a mission or industry focus.
Increased funding for this research would also play an important role in the development
of the New Zealand scientific workforce. The universities can point to instances where
top overseas academics have been interested in relocating to this country but have been
deterred by the small amount of research funding available, either from the institution or
through competitive systems. A similar situation exists with New Zealand academics
drawn overseas by the better funding opportunities on offer.
Support for the conduct of basic research comes from two main sources, the Marsden
Fund and universities’ own resources. The increase in support for the Marsden Fund in
recent years is noted but the low success rate and the number of applications that are
deemed of a suitable standard for funding are clear indications that opportunities to
increase our store of knowledge are going begging. We believe that any review of the
science system needs to look closely not only at the levels of support for the various
types of research but also at the delivery mechanisms, and in particular the degree of
contestable funding.
Any review of contestable funding should include the social sciences and health research,
where there has been a shrinking in the size of direct investment in contestable health
research funding in real terms through the lack of funding increases to the Health
Research Council. As well as ensuring that we have a well-trained health research
workforce, adequate funding of health research will help to solve New Zealand-specific
problems and contribute to global understanding and health advances. A related issue is
that health research funding through the HRC reports to one Minister (Health) but
receives its funding through another. We believe that this fragmentation should be
addressed to get a whole-of-government approach to an important research area. The
13
study of society is also important for creating an understanding of the environment in
which activities, both economic and non-economic, take place.
Increasing the support provided to new and emerging researchers
The NSSI acknowledges that science helps to ensure that we have the skills to become
an innovation-led economy and that research-led teaching is a crucial component.
While some support is available for early career researchers through the Rutherford
Discovery Fellowships we believe that more support is warranted. The demand for
greater research outputs from universities and the resulting increase in research activity
means that there is an ever-increasing demand for student and early career researchers.
Early career academic staff lack the research history or profile to attract funding and
often struggle to quickly develop connections nationally and internationally. Further
support for these researchers will help to ensure that there is a steady supply of suitably
trained researchers able to meet the needs of universities, CRIs and businesses. There
are opportunities to structure this support so it ensures that early career academic staff
and the students they supervise establish industry contacts and develop research
profiles that will support more work with industry through the rest of their career.
Pursuing more linkages between universities and CRIs
Internationally, the model of having independent research institutes co-located and
associated with Universities is quite common. Internationally, research institutes are
often aligned with universities physically or virtually to improve research concentration
and to join up investigator-led, mission-led and industry-led research in particular
sectors or disciplines.
New Zealand’s research and innovation system will be strongest where duplication of
effort and resources is minimised and the resources directed to research and the time
spent by researchers in developing and transferring knowledge is maximised.
Both
universities and CRIs make a considerable investment in infrastructure and a coordinated approach would result in savings and optimal use of equipment
As well as closer co-operation helping to ensure the optimum use of capital equipment
and support staff, it would also help with the decision-making process when it comes to
purchasing large infrastructure used by a number of players in the research sector.
Alignment can be improved through a wide variety of mechanisms. At one end of the
spectrum, these can be limited to formal operating agreements and key performance
objectives to recognise and reward joint publications, research and teaching. Colocation initiatives like that currently envisaged for the Lincoln Hub offer another positive
way of improving alignment. The Hub enables organisations with common research
interests to work in the same location. While a hub has been evolving over several
years as an arrangement of convenience, putting it on a more formal footing will
strengthen the partnerships. In addition such arrangements are ideal ways of bringing
investigator, mission, industry and education-led research together, providing
opportunities for knowledge acquired through one research activity to flow through to
the other types.
All this is not to suggest that the CRI model needs to be abandoned, although a
reflection on whether after more than 20 years the model should be re-examined may be
appropriate. Rather, now is the time to look at ways of getting the best out of the
investment in both the CRIs and the universities, starting with further co-operation in
research activities.
14
DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT : SUBMISSION
This submission is made by the Research Advisory Panel to The Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa
Tongarewa. It reflects the views of members of the Panel and not Te Papa itself.
The Advisory Panel advises the Chief Executive and the Research Practice Leader of Te Papa on the
Museum’s strategic direction for research, on research priorities and themes, research projects,
quality of research, and research collaborations, partnerships and funding.
The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act 1992 states that a principal function of the
Museum is ‘to conduct research into any matter relating to its collections or associated areas of
interest and to assist others in such research.’ The Act clearly sees Te Papa as a part of the science
system of New Zealand with a responsibility for research focussing on its collections undertaken
by its own staff and researchers external to the Museum. These collections are identified in the
Act as ‘works of art and items relating to history and the natural environment.’
Since its establishment the Museum has developed a reputation for research, particularly in the
area of natural environment, but also in the other areas of its collections. This research is
published in peer-reviewed journals, books and more popular outlets.
Museums worldwide are emphasising their role in research and the contribution they make to
national research systems through their own research, their collections and databases. There is
little recognition of museums as research institutions in the Draft National Statement. While
museum scientists may apply to some pools of research funding, nationally significant databases
and collections are mentioned only briefly as being funded through CRI core funding or through
separate appropriations (pp.39, 62). Nowhere does the draft document consider how these
collections are to be sustained and developed. The level of appropriation is unclear and there is
no recognition of the importance of these collections and databases to the national research
community.
Funding constraints within museums are putting these collections and databases and the research
undertaken on them increasingly at risk. There is a need to recognise that museums are an
integral part of the science system and to provide adequate and transparent funding to enable
them to fulfil their role as repositories of collections of national significance
1
FEEDBACK ON OVERALL SCIENCE INVESTMENT OUTLOOK
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In
particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more
contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why?
b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent
research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why?
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and
industry-led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in science
that are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are parts that are
under-emphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of the system that are less
important, that could be scaled back over time?
Funding for collections of national significance is under-emphasised. These collections are
essential to some areas of science, especially to natural environment, Maori and Pacific
research. Some of these collections contain items that are unique to New Zealand and if
research is not done here it cannot be done. The collections must be maintained and
developed.
Underpinning our knowledge of biodiversity of the New Zealand region (both naturally
occurring and introduced) are collections of biological specimens. These are housed in
several institutions around New Zealand. Some of these are identified in the NSSI as
“nationally significant collections and databases (NSCDs)”, a category of collections and
databases funded by MBIE (which are primarily significant CRI collections, principally held
at Landcare Research, GNS and NIWA). 1. However, more than one half of the significant
national collections fall outside the MBIE science funding stream and are not recognised as
NSCDs, for example, those held by Otago, Canterbury and Auckland Museum’s and funded
by local government; at Te Papa, funded by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage; special
collections for diagnostics funded by the Ministry for Primary Industries; various university
funded collections; and other smaller reference collections supported by a variety of
sources. Many biological groups (e.g. birds, marine mammals, fish, land snails) are
represented in collections that are not supported by MBIE’s funding for NSCDs.
The spread of these collections across several localities and institutions is considered
beneficial at a national level - risk at any single collection facility is mitigated by
geographically separated sites which hold representative, and distinct sets of specimens.
The organisations work together to avoid duplication wherever possible, and each has its
own focus for collecting. However, development of collections at a national level, along
1
MBIE 2014. Draft National Statement for Science Investment 2014 – 2024. p.38, p. 62.
2
with improving infrastructure and methodologies to support them could be coordinated
more strongly, through the development of a national strategy for biosystematics (see
below). It would be useful to identify this strategy in the NSSI.
3. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system perform, both
individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve their performance?
If so, how?
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
There is a need to give greater recognition to Museums in the national science system.
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that are
particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance?
6. To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies and processes,
and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical problems either in the
science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What changes could be made to ensure those
problems are being addressed?
The current set of Government-wide investment policies and processes fails to address the
long term security of collections of national significance, and encourage research on these
collections. Funding is inadequate, some institutions which hold significant collections are
not centrally funded and funding is not inflation adjusted. The NSCDs are now struggling
to adequately meet user expectations to access fully data-based and digitized collections
and to provide the breadth of scientific knowledge required for NZ.
A second critical need is in maintaining New Zealand’s biosystematics capability. The
expertise to identify species, revise taxonomies, and interpret collections is dwindling, as
curators and researchers reach retirement age or through restructuring which has resulted
in loss of capacity in these roles. These scientists provide the backbone of scientific
information on which a great number of economically important activities are based, for
example, the ability to identify invasive organisms, or to differentiate between rare, but
naturally occurring species, rests in the expertise of taxonomists. Continued, strategically
targeted investment in maintaining critical core capability in taxonomic research is
urgently needed.
7. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they
be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment
mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be
combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
3
8. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well
do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms could
advance this goal?
Greater consideration should be given to the protection and development of collections of
national significance.
9. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of investment in
science?
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION
10. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance
and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should
investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a
sound pathway to impact and application, even if long-term?
11. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
a. If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in
our science investments?
b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as
priorities for our science investments?
12. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science
investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is
the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
Some of our science institutions, and Museums are an example, have a small number of
researchers, making collaboration essential. In the case of Te Papa, the Museum is
required by legislation to assist other researchers.
13. How might the current set up of New Zealand’s research institutions either encourage or
discourage across-research institution collaborations, international researcher
collaborations, or user collaborations?
14. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science investments?
What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
4
15. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction of change?
16. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
17. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and industry-led
research? If so, how?
18. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research
community and research-active companies?
Ensuring the quality of researchers and the research undertaken is the best strategy for
improving international connectedness. If New Zealand can show it has what other people
need it will be sought out. Unique collections can be part of this strategy for engagement.
FEEDBACK ON STRUCTURE OF MBIE SECTOR-SPECIFIC RESEARCH FUNDS
19. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so, what direction of
change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
c. The multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds
and the complexity of funds
d. The accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI,
established or new entrants into the system
e. The sector-based nature of funding tools
f.
The length of funding allocation
g. The form and processes of peer review
h. The relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for impact,
past performance and the quality of the research proposal and research team.
20. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sector
specific research funds?
21. What indicators of scientific quality should we use in our assessment processes? Should
these be the same across all MBIE sector-specific funding tools?
22. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding
investments?
5
23. Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available?
The funding class that is currently missing (or is only partially addressed through inadequate
funding for collections and databases) is a dedicated science infrastructure for New Zealand. New
Zealand’s core collections and databases, particularly the biological collections, underpin New
Zealand’s biodiversity, biosecurity and economy. These collections and databases can only be
maintained with dedicated and inflation adjusted funding.
24. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of MBIE’s
research contracts? Are there any features that are particularly relevant or useful for
benchmarking or monitoring performance of contracts?
25. What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co-investments in R&D,
where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry, social
and environmental needs?
26. What are the implications of increasing the proportion of industry-led research in MBIE
funds?
a. Should leveraging private investment be a more heavily weighted goal for our
science investments? Why or why not?
b. If so, what are the current barriers to increased private investment and how might
they be overcome?
27. What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users? Is there anything
else we should consider about proposed changes to the structure of MBIE’s sector specific
research funds?
Raewyn Dalziel
Chair
Research Advisory Panel
The Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa
PO Box 647
Wellington
6
SUBMISSION BY THE FAMILIES
COMMISSION/SUPERU
to the
MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION, AND
EMPLOYMENT
on the
DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE
INVESTMENT 2014-2024
22 August 2014
Introduction
1. The Families Commission/Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit (SuPERU)
welcomes the request from Hon Steven Joyce, Minister of Science and Innovation
for broad consultation on the draft National Statement of Science Investment.
SuPERU plays a statutory role in the social science system. It is in respect of that
role that we comment on the draft National Statement.
2. This submission explains the nature of SuPERU’s interest in the Government’s
science investment, and argues that SuPERU could manage that part of the
investment that relates to the social sciences. This would be a natural fit with
SuPERU’s statutory role and its activities. It would bring benefits of greater
transparency of the Government spending on the social sciences, improved ability
to align that spending with Government’s priorities, and more opportunity to bring
the evidence created through this research to the attention of policy decisionmakers.
SuPERU has a strong interest in the Government’s science
investment and could manage that investment for Government
3. SuPERU’s interest in the Government’s science investment comes from our legal
mandate, and from the initiatives that we are pursuing in accordance with that
mandate. Because of the importance of establishing the strength of our interest in
the social investment, we document our mandate and initiatives in this section. We
then argue that the strength of our involvement with social research and the issues
of the social sector mean that SuPERU is well-placed to manage the Government’s
investment in the social sciences.
4. We are an autonomous Crown entity, accountable to the Minister for Social
Development. Our functions and related responsibilities are set out under the
Families Commission Act 2003 as amended by the Families Commission
Amendment Act 2014. The amending legislation gave SuPERU additional
responsibilities for social research in the social sector.
5. The relevant sections of the amended Act are:
7(b)
To monitor and evaluate programmes and interventions in the social sector,
and provide social science research into key issues, programmes, and
interventions across that sector (the monitoring, evaluation, and
research function).
8A(1) In order to perform its monitoring, evaluation, and research function, the
Commission has the following additional functions:
(a) to identify evidence and research that will assist in determining
or achieving the Government's policies and priorities in the social
2
sector:
(b) to commission social science research in the social sector on
behalf of the Government and others:
(c) to manage contracts for social science research in the social
sector on behalf of the Government and others:
(d) to set standards and specify best practice for monitoring and
evaluating programmes and interventions in the social sector:
(e) to establish and maintain a database of social science research
undertaken by or on behalf of the Government
6. SuPERU has been advised by an Expert Advisory Group which was established in
anticipation of the amending legislation. Now that the legislation has been passed,
this group is being reformed as the Social Science Experts Panel (SSEP) whose
title and functions will accord with Section 18B of the amended Act. Its statutory
functions are to provide academic peer review of any research, evaluations,
standards, reports, or other publications done or issued by or on behalf of the
Commission, and otherwise to provide guidance to the Commission. SSEP will be
able to provide advice on matters related to the Government’s social science
investment.
7. In addition to the Social Science Experts Panel, SuPERU has three advisory
groups which can keep it abreast of social sector issues affecting particular groups,
and the evidence gaps related to these issues. These are the Whānau, Pacific and
Ethnic reference groups which together provide advice on the needs, values, and
beliefs of Māori, Pacific Island Peoples, and other ethnic and cultural groups.
8. In keeping with the Act, our purpose is to increase the use of evidence by people
across the social sector so that they can make better decisions – about funding,
policies or services – to improve the lives of New Zealanders, New Zealand’s
communities, families and whānau.1
9. Our role and purpose give SuPERU a direct interest in the creation of social
science evidence and, accordingly, in the Government’s Science Investment. This
interest is further emphasised through our key initiatives as set out in our Statement
of Intent, 2014-2018. These initiatives are of two types – those that are aimed at
growing the evidence base, and those that facilitate the use of evidence.
10. In order to grow the evidence base, we are influencing the providers and funders of
social science research and evaluation to do and fund research and evaluation that
is useful to policy-makers and programme developers; influencing the development
of sustainable research assets and a common social research infrastructure that
1
Families Commission/SuPERU Statement of Intent 2014-2018,
http://www.familiescommission.org.nz/sites/default/files/downloads/SOI%202014-2018_0.pdf
3
will support good social science research and its availability; and commissioning
and conducting good social science research and evaluation.
11. We are facilitating the use of evidence by making social science research and
evidence easier to access and understand; stimulating awareness of evidence, its
importance, and the big social issues for New Zealand; and supporting the use of
evidence by decision-makers in the social sector.
12. Our initiatives which are most relevant to the Government’s Science Investment
are:
• engaging with funders of social science research to encourage them to fund
research and evaluation that is useful to policy-makers and programme
developers;
• encouraging the development and maintenance of sustainable research
assets;
• promoting the development of policy-relevant research outputs using
existing data;
• developing a set of research, monitoring and evaluation standards and best
practice tools and guidelines that will support good social science research,
monitoring and evaluation;
• establishing and managing a contestable evaluation fund for the Ministry of
Social Development’s Investing in Services for Outcomes (ISO) initiative;
• commissioning and/or carrying out social science research on topics of
relevance to New Zealand now and in the future that is aligned to
government objectives and our assessment of where there are critical gaps
in the evidence base;
• managing contracts for social science research on behalf of the
Government and others;
• commissioning/undertaking evaluations of social programmes;
• establishing and managing a Government social science research hub; and
• synthesising the evidence on what works to improve social outcomes for
families/whānau and the people of New Zealand.
13. This section has demonstrated the extent of our statutory role and activities in
research and evaluation in the social sector. It would, therefore, be appropriate for
SuPERU to manage the Government’s social science investment in the social
sector. Were this to be brought about, there would be a number of benefits, which
are outlined in the rest of this submission.
Giving Greater Recognition to the Importance of Social Science
for New Zealand
14. We argue here that the social science research and evaluation in the social sector
is of enormous importance, and that importance deserves greater recognition. This
importance would be better acknowledged if the Government’s social science
investment were to be managed as a whole, rather than being dispersed through
4
the various administrative systems that fund jointly the physical and social
sciences. These include the Marsden Fund, Health Research Fund, Performance
Based Research Fund, the National Science Challenges, the Centres for Research
Excellence, and the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships.
15. Previous reviews of New Zealand’s social science sector point to fragmentation,
lack of coordination, problems with capability, and insufficient sharing of information
among government agencies and academia.2 Evaluations and research are too
often irrelevant to policy considerations. As a result, important policy issues are
being considered by the Government without the benefit of sound evidence, and
new and existing programmes are not always been subjected to rigorous
evaluation.
16. Addressing New Zealand’s complex social issues requires good evidence. For most
New Zealanders social outcomes are improving, but some individuals and families
continue to experience significant problems. There are many things that can
improve the lives of the people of New Zealand. Improving the effectiveness of
policy, programmes and services is a powerful way to do this.
17. The social issues we are working to improve are complex, and involve a range of
areas such as health, education, justice, social development and housing. For
social policy and programmes to be effective now and in the future they need to be
based on foresight which is founded on a robust understanding of where we are
now and how we got here. This requires a good understanding of the complex
social issues facing New Zealand, including how they are likely to change, and of
what works to address them.
18. Government and non-government agencies are increasingly working together to
understand and address complex social problems. These agencies spend billions
of dollars annually in the social sector on policies and programmes aimed at
improving outcomes for families, whānau, communities, and society as a whole. It
is important that this investment is based on good information about what works
and what does not. This is the evidence that is provided by social science.
19. Giving the responsibility for the management of the social science part of the
Government’s science investment to one agency would provide the focus that
social research deserves, in recognition of its importance; it would provide
coherency to that management; and would bring additional benefits that are
discussed below.
2
Gluckman, P., 2011, Towards better use of evidence in policy formation: a discussion paper,
Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee, http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wpcontent/uploads/Towards-better-use-of-evidence-in-policy-formation.pdf, page 15.
Committee appointed by the Government to Review Policy Advice, 2010, Improving the Quality
and Value of Policy Advice, pages 47 to 49.
Cook, L., 2009, Leading Social Policy Research in the New Zealand Public Sector, Social Policy
Evaluation and Research Committee, http://www.spear.govt.nz/documents/spear-chair-sdirection-paper-oct-2009.pdf
5
The Transparency of the Social Science Investment
Expenditure
20. As discussed above, the current administration of the Government’s investment in
the social sciences is dispersed through a number of separate funds. Most of the
money from these funds is spent on the physical sciences, and it is difficult to
identify how much is spent on the social sciences. We believe that there should be
greater accountability to the Government and the public for this expenditure. To
move towards that, the administration of government expenditure on the social
sciences needs to be better documented. This would be easier if the social science
investment were to be managed through one agency, and we are suggesting that
should be SuPERU.
The Alignment of the Social Science Expenditure with
Government Priorities
21. In this section we argue that if the Government’s social science investment were
managed by SuPERU, this would make it easier to align spending from this
investment with the Government’s priorities.
22. On account of its statutory functions, and activities designed to create and promote
the use of evidence on social sector issues, SuPERU knows better than any other
agency what the key issues are across the entire social sector, and what the
evidence gaps are that need to be addressed. At the same time, SuPERU is
sensitive to Government priorities as they relate to these issues, and is accordingly
well placed to identify what evidence is needed to advance Government policies
and programmes. This would allow SuPERU to develop frameworks which could be
used to suggest priorities for the spending of the Government’s social science
investment, provide guidance to scientists/researchers seeking funds, and assess
their applications.
23. SuPERU acknowledges that there needs to be a balance between investigator-led
scientific enquiry and scientific endeavours directed towards the Government’s
priorities. We find it impossible to comment on the degree to which this balance is
achieved or not achieved in relation to social issues at present, given the current
opaqueness (discussed in the previous section) about what social research is
currently being funded through the Government’s science investment.
The Emphasis on Research with Impact
24. SuPERU supports the emphasis in the draft National Statement on ensuring value
by focusing on relevant science with the highest potential for impact for the benefit
of New Zealand. SuPERU embodies this concept in its own work by focusing on
research that is relevant to the Government’s priorities and by seeing that the
evidence we produce is put before policy decision-makers. We support them in
6
understanding and using the evidence. If SuPERU were made responsible for
managing the Government’s social science investment, it would be well placed to
use its knowledge activation expertise to maximise the impact of the funded
research. We would do our utmost to bring this research to the attention of
decision-makers, in a relevant, timely, and understandable way.
25. Coupled with our plans for better alignment of the Government’s social science
investment with Government’s priorities, our knowledge activation activities would
increase the impact of the funded research.
Conclusion
26. We have shown in this submission that SuPERU has statutory responsibilities to
commission social science research on key issues, programmes and interventions
across the social sectors, and to promote monitoring and evaluation standards, and
best practice. We believe that this means that SuPERU should be playing a role in
the government’s apparatus for managing its science investment. At the least, we
should be involved in giving advice on the social science part of that investment,
and in determining priorities and standards. The National Statement of Science
Investment should acknowledge that role.
27. We have argued that our role could be more than this – SuPERU could manage on
behalf of the Government that part of science investment that relates to the social
sciences. This would be compatible with the functions given to SuPERU by the
amended Families Commission Act. It would result in greater transparency and
accountability, a better balance between research which addresses academic and
the Government’s priorities, and improved use of evidence by policy decisionmakers. Within the concept of managing the social science investment, there is a
continuum of options, from higher level management and priority setting, to full
management and administration of the funding processes.
7
Feedback on Overall Science Investment Outlook
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In
particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more contestable
funds? If not, what should it be and why?
b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent
research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why?
Without comparative metrics of the effectiveness, value, impact, translation and uptake of
research funded utilising particular investment mechanisms, or how research institutions are
performing relative to one another, it is difficult to make any definitive comments or
recommendations in this regard. In order to answer these questions MBIE needs to provide the
evidence base, and to align the available research funds to the areas of greatest strength, current
and future need, and opportunity, utilising the investment mechanisms that get the best results,
and investing in the research teams/institutions that can best deliver the highest quality, most
beneficial results.
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and industry-led
funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
There is a great deal of emphasis in the draft statement on the importance of research quality.
HRC agrees that research quality is paramount. With the comparatively low level of investment
in research internationally speaking, it is critical that NZ supports our very best. Evidence
indicates that peer-review is the best way to identify quality and feasibility. It is false to assume
that investigator-initiated research cannot achieve the same aims as mission-led research, i.e.
contribute towards an outcome, answer specific questions and have an application in view.
Seventy-percent of the investigator initiated research the HRC funds contributes directly to
achieving the outcome and supporting one or more of the underlying themes identified in the
mission-led three health-related Nations Science Challenges (NSCs). Health research by nature
is focussed on improving health and wellbeing outcomes. It is also false to assume that
investigator-initiated research is anti-collaborative and a process that doesn’t support
multidisciplinary approaches. The share level of competitions and scarcity of funds available
requires researchers to develop enduring collaborations. Similarly the increasing focus on the
need for research to make a difference, has resulted in multidisciplinary approaches to pressing
science questions becoming common-place.
With respect to industry engagement in research, NZ appears to spend an inordinately large
proportion of public money on supporting research with industry, with very little evidence that
this has resulted in industry themselves correspondingly investing more in research. The draft
statement says that “using Government’s science investment more explicitly to support
improved levels of industry-led R&D is a key focus of future direction”. What is the evidence
base to support this? What is the return on business-led mechanisms? How has it been
determined that this is a good use of Government funds over and above other science and
sector-led options where NZ has considerable, internationally recognised strengths?
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in science that
are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are parts that are under-
emphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of the system that are less important,
that could be scaled back over time?
Health is identified as an area of future growth and need (page 7). However, there are no new
funds tagged for health research out to 2024. Health spending is a key driver of western
economies, with the OECD predicting that rising healthcare costs pose the biggest threat to the
long term sustainability of New Zealand’s economy. At 10.3 per cent of GDP, health spend
represents one of the country’s largest on-going costs, with Treasury predicting that health care
costs as a percentage of GDP could double again within the next 40 years. Research will be
critical in helping New Zealand get ahead of the curve by keeping New Zealanders healthy and
productive and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of health care services. However, the
money invested in research that underpins the future sustainability of our healthcare system is
not even a fraction of what we spend on delivering that care. Investing even half a percent of the
$14.2 billion we spend would create a platform from which significant health gains and cost
savings could be generated, at a far greater rate.
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
Having been to the MBIE-led workshop on the performance framework part of the draft
National Statement of Science Investments (NSSI), I am much clearer about the thinking and
logic that sits behind the indicators identified. I also understand the political imperative to have
a ‘dashboard type’ set of indicators. However, I feel it is also critical to identify some clear
outcomes and goals for the sector, so that we can really track and assess our progress on key
variables. This could, and should be tied to the priorities outlined in the NSSI document.
This will require developing an evidence-base on sector identified and agreed indicators of
research quality, need, strength and opportunity if MBIE is to be able to demonstrate that MBIE
investments are “producing excellent science of the highest quality”, “ensuring value by focusing
on relevant science with the highest potential for impact for the future of NZ”, and “increasing
focus on sectors of future need or growth.”
New Zealand’s investment in research is low. This makes the need to really identify and target
support into areas of strength, need and opportunity even more critical.
6. Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that are
particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance?
Bibliometric analyses is one metric that is common across all areas of science funding and
allows both national and international comparisons and benchmarking, and is a good tool for
identifying pockets of research strength.
8. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they be
made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment
mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be
combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
Feedback from the research community indicates a strong preference for having a variety of
different funding options and approaches (more is better than less), as well as agencies with
specific expertise, with particular areas of responsibility. Researchers are familiar with the
different requirements, expertise and priorities of Marsden, HRC and MBIE, and like the
flexibility inherent in having different options depending upon the stage and focus of their
research.
9. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well
do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms could
advance this goal?
We could take greater advantage by better capitalising on the extensive international networks
and collaborations that our researchers already have. Sixty-nine percent of HRC-funded
applicants in the 2014 round are working with an international collaborator.
General Feedback on the Direction
Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science
investment.
These are:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the
benefit of New Zealand
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our
science system to benefit New Zealand.
These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. Your feedback
might consider the following questions.
QUESTIONS ON THE CHANGES IN DIRECTION PROPOSED IN THIS STATEMENT:
11. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance
and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should
investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a
sound pathway to impact and application, even if long term?
Yes. Public funds supporting research need to deliver outcomes, across the spectrum over the
short-to medium – to long term. Investing in the best quality research, that has a sound pathway
to impact and application, as well as engagement with end-users, is the research most likely to
achieve this.
HRC assessment includes an assessment for ‘impact’ and potential for benefit (25 percent of
overall score), where applicants are also asked to identify the pathway for uptake, who will use
the results and the extent to which they are involved etc.
12. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
No. This represents very short-term thinking and a very limited understanding of the potential
for science to grow the economy. Greater economic prosperity is more likely to be achieved by
addressing the fundamentals – a healthy productive population, who participate fully in
employment and society, who live in safe and sustainable environments.
13. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science
investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is the
appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
Collaboration as a framework that is imposed on researchers simply does not work. The
collaboration will only work when it is genuine and based around mutual research goals and
aspirations in which all parties have a significant and equitable role to play in generating the
results. Contrary to conventional wisdom, our experience is a high level of competition in fact
drives greater collaboration. When resource is limited and the demand for funding is so high,
being successful has come to mean developing strong collaborations with the best researchers
in the field, regardless of institution. HRC’s emphasis on impact and benefit has also seen many
more applications that are truly multidisciplinary, as success is higher if the research is truly
translational.
16. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction of change?
What about continuing to support areas of strength where NZ has gained international
recognition? There are numerous benefits that accrue from this that we do not want to
jeopardise or undermine.
17. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
Stick with peer review, but build relevance, impact and potential for benefit into the assessment
criteria. Peer-review is the best way to identify quality. Include end-users on the assessment
panel to provide specific input into the impact and benefit aspect of assessment.
18. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and industry-led
research? If so, how?
No. the science aspect of research applications will always need expert peer-review. Poor
research design will deliver nothing.
Royal Society of New Zealand | 22 August 2014
Comments on the Draft National Statement
of Science Investment 2014-2024
Introduction
This paper provides feedback for Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on behalf of
the Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) on the recently released draft National Statement of Science
Investment 2014-2024 (referred to here as NSSI)1. The feedback is provided by a panel (see Appendix 1)
formed by the RSNZ to review the New Zealand Research System. Appendix 2 includes comments that
address apparent misconceptions or important points that the RSNZ feels have been overlooked. The
main body of this submission, however, is our response to the questions posed in the document under
the ‘Consultation’ section2.
Summary of key points
1. The NSSI document emphasises the importance of science excellence. We strongly endorse this view
and encourage the use of high quality independent review processes. When it comes to science
‘good enough’ is not good enough. Problems are only solved by excellent science.
2. At less than 8% of the total science budget, funds for untargeted curiosity-driven (investigator-led)
science are currently inadequate for sustaining an innovation-led economy. Curiosity-driven research
was a key factor in creating the agriculturally-based economy that New Zealand currently depends
on. Mission-led or industry-directed science is important for nationally significant science challenges
but does not support the young scientists whose independent research may produce the
serendipitous outcomes that our economic future depends on. Curiosity-driven research also builds
the human and physical capability necessary to undertake mission-led research as well as to translate
overseas developments for the benefit of New Zealand3.
3. Better mechanisms are needed to ensure that the findings of curiosity-driven science are translated
to economic, social, health and environmental outcomes. A key issue is a better appreciation of the
variable (and often long) timescales of the return on the science investment.
4. Better mechanisms are needed for career development in the science system. The level of support
for attracting talented Kiwi scientists back to New Zealand and retaining them is at least an order of
magnitude below that of Australia on a population adjusted basis.
5. More evidence-based decision making around science investment is needed to ensure more stability
in the science system. Major changes are made to our science system with inadequate scientific
justification. Frequent restructuring of the Ministry overseeing science investment is also
destabilising and costly for the science system.
www.msi.govt.nz/update-me/major-projects/national-statement-of-science-investment
The RSNZ discussed an early draft of this submission with senior MBIE officials on August 14 th.
3 For example, we did not invent fertilizer but we had the capability to adapt its use to New Zealand
conditions.
1
2
Page 1
Overall comments
The draft National Statement of Science Investment (referred to here as NSSI) provides a convenient
summary of the Government’s current investment in the science system and an indication of future
investment. It provides some context and a limited rationale for current and future investment but does
not attempt to lay out a cohesive strategy or vision for future development of the New Zealand science
system. For example, there is no indication of how the Government will deal with well recognised gaps in
the current system, such as the lack of adequate postdoctoral support and career paths for young
scientists, or how the relationship between researchers in the universities and Crown Research Institutes
(CRIs) and the needs of companies operating in New Zealand can be improved.
There are, however, many statements that the RSNZ supports4, and we commend the Government for
providing a valuable resource for developing future science policy and for stimulating and informing a
public discussion around the direction of future science investment in New Zealand. The document does
provide an excellent starting point for a rational debate on the appropriate level of Government research
funding and how this should be distributed among, for example, investigator-led, mission-led and
industry-led research projects. It will however take time to gather the data and to achieve a consensus on
recommendations from the science and business community. The RSNZ hopes that the publication of
this document and the call for feedback indicate a genuine desire to work with the science sector to
develop a vision and long term strategy for improving the science system. The Royal Society of New
Zealand, as an independent body broadly representing New Zealand scientists (as well as other scholars),
is certainly keen to work with the government and other interested groups to develop such a vision and
strategy.
Responses to questions under the consultation section
A. FEEDBACK ON OVERALL SCIENCE INVESTMENT OUTLOOK
B. GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION
C. FEEDBACK ON STRUCTURE OF MBIE SECTOR-SPECIFIC RESEARCH FUNDS
Some of the points below address more than one of these topics, so they are grouped together here.
1. Investigator-led or curiosity-driven research. The challenge facing those responsible for science
policy is how to maintain an intellectual climate in which curiosity can flourish5 . The famous
comment made by the Nobel Laureate Sir George Porter that “There are two types of chemistry –
applied and yet to be applied” is relevant for all areas of scientific research6, and there is much
evidence7 to support the argument that most economically valuable outcomes from research are the
serendipitous results of scientists passionately following their own research interests. Examples of
RSNZ particularly endorses the key priorities to “produce excellent science of the highest quality” (p7), to
“commit to increasing investment over time from 0.52 to 0.8% of GDP” (p8) and agree, under the heading
Why invest in science? (p10), that “Government-funded research is seen around the world as an important
complement to private sector investment”, that “science is central in brokering the balance between the use
of our rich natural resources for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and preserving our unique environmental
heritage” and that “Research-led teaching in our tertiary education institutions is crucial to training the
highest-skilled part of our future workforce”.
5 From Sir John Enderby in the paper “Curiosity-driven ‘Blue Sky’ Research: a threatened vital activity?”
by Sir John Cadogan – see http://learnedsocietywales.ac.uk/node/539
6 Einstein’s theory of relativity might seem irrelevant but satellite navigation would not work without it.
7 For example: www.rcuk.ac.uk/Publications/archive/ExcellencewithImpact/; and A.J. Salter & B.R. Martin The
economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy 30. 509–532, 2001.
4
Page 2
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
this are: Lasers, the Haber process for the fixation of nitrogen, Optical fibres, All forms of
spectroscopy from microwave to magnetic resonance imaging, X-Ray crystallography, X-rays and
positron emission tomography, Nuclear fission, Penicillin and hence antibiotics, Dyestuffs,
Photography, Liquid crystals, Small molecule therapeutics, Organic chemical synthesis in general,
DNA and hence genomics, Monoclonal antibodies, Stem cells, Finite element analysis, Free radicals,
Organic polymers and composites, The transistor, Photovoltaics, Radio, 3K and ‘warm’
superconductors.
To give an example close to home, the curiosity-driven research of Professor John Boys8 on inductive
power transfer (IPT) over a 20 year period gave the University of Auckland a patent portfolio that has
produced a very substantial economic return to New Zealand. It is unlikely that this would have
started in an application-driven research environment9. A second example is the University of Otago
spinout cancer diagnostics company Pacific Edge10 which is based on the cancer genetics research of
Professor Parry Guilford. A third example is the work of Professor Colin Green at the University of
Auckland on the gap-junction proteins (integrins) that regulate cell-cell connections. The patent
family from this curiosity-driven research is now being exploited by the spinout company CoDa
Therapeutics11 to produce a new generation of wound care therapeutics known as ‘gap junction
modulators’. Sir Paul Callaghan’s work at Victoria University in the field of NMR physics is another
example of the importance of curiosity-driven research leading to economic returns (Magritek12), and
most importantly, in Paul’s words, ‘a place where talent wants to live’13. Many other examples exist
and of course the benefits are to social, health and environmental outcomes as well as to economic
outcomes.
This year (2014) is the 20th anniversary of the Marsden Fund and a number of case studies have been
assembled14 to illustrate the social, environmental, health and economic impact of curiosity-driven
research, including examples from Jeff Tallon on high temperature superconductors, Colin Green on
healing wounds, Ngahuia Te Awekotuku on sustaining the art of the moko, Catherine Day on the life
and death of the cell, Antonia Lyons on young adults and drinking cultures, Martin Reyners on
tectonic plates, Jennifer Hay on linguistics, Harlene Hayne on how childhood experiences affect
human development, Dillon Mayhew on geometry in the computer age and Ken McNatty on what
makes a good maternal egg.
There are also many examples of important fundamental research that was motivated by solving a
practical problem. The career of Louis Pasteur15 is testament to this, but examples crucial to New
Zealand’s current agricultural economy are the work of Sir Geoffrey Peren16 (Perendale sheep),
William Riddet17 (dairy science) and Hugh Whitehead18 (the role of bacteriophages in making
cheese).
As shown in Figure 1 below, New Zealand commits relatively little public funding to untargeted R&D
funding (6.8% of public expenditure on R&D versus 18.7% across the OECD). Tripling the size of the
Marsden fund would bring us closer to the OECD average in terms of the proportion of public funds
8
http://www.uniservices.co.nz/commercialisation
This work of course relied on the curiosity-driven discovery of electromagnetic induction by Faraday
and the theory of electromagnetic radiation by Maxwell.
10 http://www.pacificedgedx.com/
11 http://www.codatherapeutics.com/index.html
12 http://www.magritek.com/
13 http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/events/2012-transit-of-venus-forum-lifting-our-horizon/vision-statement/
14 http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/programmes/funds/marsden/marsden20/
15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Sylvester_Peren
17 http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/4r17/riddet-william
18 http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/30990/hugh-whitehead
9
Page 3
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
that we devote to untargeted R&D.
Figure 1. Percentage of public R&D funding that is untargeted, for countries in the OECD 19.
We must not undervalue or underfund curiosity-driven research, as serendipitous scientific
discoveries in the long run are the single most important contributor to the country’s well-being.
Equally we must create innovation environments in our universities and CRIs that facilitate the
development of these serendipitous discoveries, via companies, into economic returns to New
Zealand. Moreover, the value of investigator-led research goes beyond the serendipitous results of
curiosity. As New Zealand's science capacity has matured, individual investigators are well placed to
conduct cutting edge research that can be used to solve New Zealand's problems right now. We
need to have more faith in the science community to see the big issues and tackle them.
The chart on NSSI p14 is instructive in showing how the funding is broadly distributed, but what
stands out is that most of the resources are directed at mission-led science. Contestable funding for
investigator-led funding, which comes just from Marsden, Health Research Council (HRC) and Centres
of Research Excellence (CoREs), amounts to only less than 8% of the total20. This is very low by
international standards, and well below what most analysts argue as being appropriate to sustain a
broad research capability. The majority of this research is carried out in universities, and access to
such funds is vital for attracting and retaining top quality staff, training graduate research students,
and maintaining the international stature of our universities. Current funding is inadequate for this.
Mission-led science encourages collaboration, which is clearly a good thing, especially for nationally
significant science challenges such as understanding the impact of the southern oceans on climate
change or how to ensure that our water ways remain unpolluted in a high dairy production
environment. But it favours large well-established groups and is much less likely to produce the
scientific breakthroughs that are the key to wealth creation in the long run. Very little National
Science Challenge (NSC) research funding will be available for investigator-led competitive bids.
The current 8% success rate (for applications to the Marsden Fund) is too discouraging and wasteful.
Figure 2 below compares the level of R&D funding per researcher full time equivalent (FTE) in New
Zealand universities with universities in other OECD countries.
19
http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm
Note that one important aspect of the Marsden Fund is the way in which it embraces a range of disciplinary
areas, ensuring comparability of standards and processes under the oversight of the Marsden Council
and RSNZ administration.
20
Page 4
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
Figure 2. Higher Education R&D spending per R&D FTE, for countries in the OECD 21. New Zealand’s
unfavourable position at the right hand end of this plot reflects the fact that university R&D in New
Zealand is characterised by a large number of PhD students and a very low level of post-doc and other
fellowship funding. This low level of R&D funding per researcher largely explains the declining world
rankings for our universities.
2. Lack of adequate career paths for New Zealand scientists. The single biggest problem facing the
New Zealand science sector is, in our view, the lack of adequate career development paths. This is
partly linked to the need for more investment by New Zealand companies in research. One way to
address this issue might be to offer a substantial number (say 100) of postdoctoral fellowships that
are supported one third by Government, one third by a university or CRI and one third by industry (or
other organisation that would be an end-user of the research). Requiring the industry contribution
would ensure the relevance of the postdoctoral research to industry and having the university
component would ensure the link to graduate supervision, a possible teaching role and the link to
international research collaborations. The Government contribution would provide the enticement
and serve a Government objective in encouraging an innovation-led economy. Similar schemes are
needed for other (non-business targeted) areas. The first step, however, should be to consult with
industry and other end-user groups to find the best strategy. Better structural integration of the CRIs
with the universities may be another means of achieving more stable and attractive career paths – a
question that needs to be explored in the RSNZ research system review.
A related issue is that of bringing skilled expatriate New Zealand scientists back into the New Zealand
research environment and other mechanisms are needed for this to ensure appropriate career
development pathways. These career pathways should be to a rich and diverse science system that
includes industry, government and the tertiary sector. Note that the Australian National Health and
Medical Research Council (NHMRC) alone supports 800 career fellowships in the fields of biomedical
and health research22. The RSNZ offers five Postdoc Fellowships (for people who are no more than
two years post-PhD) and 10 Rutherford Discovery Fellowships (3-8 years post-PhD) for our entire
science system. We therefore currently produce many talented research scientists from our graduate
programmes who go overseas for postdoc training and then on to attractive fellowship schemes in
Australia.
21
22
http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/apply-funding/career-development-fellowships
Page 5
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
Introduction of Rutherford Fellowships has been a welcome innovation, and along with Hercus
Fellowships from the HRC and the James Cook Fellowships, these help fill the real gap for funding
talented emerging researchers working on basic research questions or health research (in the case of
the HRC). But there are too few available (as noted on NSSI p69). These fellowships are a vital
component of the career development pathway for our top-achieving young researchers who wish to
go on to research careers in the universities, CRIs and other research-based institutions.
3. Over-fragmentation of the New Zealand science system and the high administrative overheads of
mission-led research. The new funding for the 10 NSCs are of course very welcome but the prospect
of 10 new separately governed and managed entities, with the associated administrative costs, is
alarming. New Zealand already has a fairly fragmented science system - 8 universities, 7 CRIs and
Callaghan Innovation in a country of 4.5m people. The six (10 in 2016) CoREs, although hosted by the
universities, also have separate governing boards. Are we spending proportionately too much on
governance and administration and not enough on the actual science in the New Zealand research
system? The RSNZ does appreciate that the laudable desire by Government to encourage more
collaboration across the science system (in the form of both CoREs and NSCs) comes at the price of
dealing with complex governance and management arrangements, but we are possibly not
adequately considering these costs and how to reduce them. It may be time to think again about
better integration of some CRIs with the universities23 or mergers of CRIs and/or universities. The
ownership of CRIs by Government and the greater degree of accountability to their business-focused
Boards should not be an impediment if they were established as Research Institutes within
universities with accountability for their business operation to Government and their research and
educational activities to their host universities. The case for this would of course have to be carefully
established.
4. More stability is needed in the science system. The New Zealand science community has paid a high
price for the continual changes in the science system over the last five or so years. Five years ago the
Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST) and its executive arm the Foundation for
RS&T (FRST), were replaced with the Ministry of Science and Innovation (MSI), which was then
disestablished and merged with other Government Departments to form MBIE. Each time there is a
major upheaval like this there is a turnover of people, institutional knowledge is lost and new
relationships with the science sector have to be established. The introduction of the NSCs in 2013
were yet another example of a new funding instrument being introduced rather than new money
being used to enhance existing research funds24. Some of the mission-directed goals of the NSCs
could have been achieved via more investment in the HRC or the Tertiary Education Council (TEC)funded Centres of Research Excellence, which have very similar goals of long term research, training
and nationally important outcomes. Compare this with the Marsden Fund which has now been
running extremely successfully for 20 years. At the very minimum such changes in the system should
be justified with a cost/benefit analysis.
5. Evidence-based decisions. Only lip-service is paid to the issue of evaluating the effectiveness of
policies and mechanisms, and yet it is particularly important for a small nation like New Zealand to
spend its limited resources wisely. Robust evaluation is needed, and not just of policies and
mechanisms, but also of the effectiveness of the system structure. New funding instruments should
not be introduced, or old ones discarded, without a clear cost-benefit analysis. We need to get much
The current 7 CRIs (AgResearch, NIWA, Plant & Food, Scion, GNS, Landcare, ESR) are descendants of the
8 original CRIs created as partially commercial entities out of the six divisions (Grasslands, Plant Diseases,
Entomology, Soil Bureau, Crop Research, Geophysics Division) of the Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research (DSIR) in 1992.
24 Note the recent announcement by the Australian Government of an additional $20 billion (by 2020) for
medical research (http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/overview/html/overview_12.htm) is being
directed via the existing funding agency NHMRC.
23
Page 6
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
better at gathering data on the effectiveness of research investment in order to provide a rational
basis for how funds should be distributed across the various funding pots.
Another example of where a more rational evidence-based process is needed is in the rather
sporadic and ad hoc nature of funding increases to the Marsden Fund and HRC. It would be far
preferable to have a roadmap for improving the New Zealand science system – based on widespread
discussion and broad consensus across the science sector. This is the primary goal of the RSNZ panel
established to review the New Zealand research system.
6. Focus should not be too inward on Research for New Zealand. Key priority 2 (NSSI p8) and Objective
2 (p16) make ‘benefit to New Zealand’ a main focus for our science. Although this is reasonable as
one objective, we must avoid being too inward-looking. New Zealand can (and does) compete
internationally in many areas of science, making fundamental discoveries and innovations that
advance knowledge and its application in a global sense. Exposure of this work at an international
level is a driving force for our best scientists. Participating in international scientific collaborations is
an essential part of world class research, and international investment in New Zealand hi-tech
companies also often depends on the international reputation of scientists in our universities and
CRIs. If one objective is to foster an innovation-led economy and economic growth from our scientific
research (p10), and another is to retain and develop talent (p11), then international reputation
should have a higher profile as a priority.
7. Investment by the private sector. In the third paragraph of the Introduction and elsewhere, there is
a stated aim of "getting results directly to the areas where the knowledge can benefit New Zealand
the most". This is admirable, but the document gives little sense about what role the private sector
should play in helping to make this happen, and in fact it gives the impression that the Government is
taking on the role of commercialising research for the private sector. This is not a sensible strategy in
the medium to long term, and it can work against the aim of increasing R&D expenditure and
beneficial outcomes. The Government should be doing all it can to incentivise far greater investment
by the private sector in research, and use public resources to address market failure and support the
things that the private sector will not - such as developing the pool of research expertise, providing
and supporting infrastructure, and so on.
8. Balance of R&D expenditure. The graph on NSSI p22 illustrates the historical nature of R&D
expenditure. Although a reasonable amount of Government money is now spent on research in/for
the manufacturing sector, very small amounts are spent on research in/for the service sectors, and
yet these make up a considerable proportion of the economy and could certainly benefit from
research into improving efficiency and productivity. Research by Professor David Ryan and Dr Andrew
Mason in the Engineering Science Dept at the University of Auckland, for example, reduced
scheduling costs for organisations such as Air New Zealand and the St John’s Ambulance and led to
the spinout company Optima25.
Another example is in the level of funding for biomedical research (mostly administered via the HRC)
where current funding rates, adjusted for population, are 3.4-fold higher in Australia, 4.5-fold higher
in the UK and 9.7-fold higher in the US26 than in New Zealand. There has also been a swing towards
more translational/mission-led research in the HRC. Basic biomedical research is no longer one of
HRC’s high priorities, even though experts all agree that it is a necessity for underpinning other
research. The inadequate support for biomedical science in New Zealand is a major obstacle to the
recruitment and retention of clinical and academic staff in our hospitals and universities, and
compromises our ability to carry out research on diseases that are particularly relevant to the New
Zealand environment.
25
http://www.theoptimacorporation.com/
Reid I, Joyce P, Fraser J, Crampton P, Government funding of health research in NZ. The NZ Medical
Journal, Vol 127, #1389, 2014. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/127-1389/5992/
26
Page 7
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
9. Infrastructure as an enabler, accelerating research and advancing research capabilities.
There is currently no clear vision for the potential of research infrastructures in the NSSI. The
Business Growth Agenda highlights the importance of infrastructure, especially the evolution to hitech infrastructures typified by those based on digital technologies such as fibre optics and
computing, and the relevance of related skills to the economy and society. Research infrastructures
are a catalyst for the move to a ‘first world’ data informed society and economy, support us to
achieve collaboration and interoperability across the sector, and enable our researchers to remain
internationally competitive.
10. Short term project contracting arrangements for infrastructure investments create unnecessary
instability. The intent of the NSSI to take a 10-year outlook for the investments noted is welcome.
Investments in infrastructure contain significant cost and risk, and require medium to long time
frames to mature. Sustainability during the course of their developments is essential, yet current
project based contracting mechanisms are insufficient in providing this certainty and stability. The
NSSI should indicate a willingness to consider longer term funding mechanisms to support growth
and performance of critical national research infrastructures. Reference is made to such long-term
funding commitments from the Government, yet these commitments are indicative in the form of
forecasted long-term Vote appropriations, while funding is only committed within short-term 3 or 4
year contracts. Developments in the EU are shifting to long-term sustainable funding for key research
infrastructures such as the Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe (PRACE) high performance
computing investment, as these infrastructures are shared and underpin all other research sector
investments.
11. The research data infrastructure gap was identified long ago - why is there still no government
strategy? Early open data initiatives focused on environmental data, and brought together public
sector agencies and councils to focus on increasing the reach and impact gained from data collected
nationally. With the subsequent changes from MoRST through MSI to MBIE, this work has all but
ceased, and early carefully guided progress has stalled and momentum has been lost. Good ‘All of
Government’ policy initiatives are in place for information management and data reuse, though
without effect on and application to research. The open data and data management requirements in
current research grants are not able to be consistently responded to by researchers nor are they well
supported by institutions or infrastructure providers. A lack of coordination in approach is apparent –
there are no overarching statements on vision, strategy, nor infrastructure from Government,
despite these policies being increasingly embedded in research grants and contracts. The most recent
example is within the NSCs, where each Challenge was required to propose their own Open Data
policy – with such a broad sweep of national research communities supported within the NSCs, this is
a once-in-a-generation opportunity to establish a coherent approach to research data policy and
support, coordinated nationally. Recently the NZ Data Futures Forum supported by the Ministers of
Finance and Statistics took a very brief and high level look at data related matters in the research
sector, and even with a short analysis came away with clear recommendations for two research data
infrastructures. The NSSI is entirely silent on this key gap in current strategy, policy, and supporting
infrastructure.
12. International relationships and sharing of research infrastructures. The International Relationships
Fund is indicated as a key mechanism for international collaboration and sharing of research
infrastructures. In a national context, large scale research infrastructures are often invested in due to
market failure. The capabilities and skills they contain are therefore often unique nationally. To
ensure that acquisitions, operations, and the evolution of such infrastructures remain effective and
at the leading edge of international practice, stronger international linkages with the research
infrastructures of other nations is essential. Strong nationally coordinated and internationally linked
research infrastructure programmes are common to advanced nations, with Australia having
invested over the long term into their National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, and
Canada taking an innovative approach with their national Digital Leadership Council. Strategic
opportunities are open to New Zealand for increased participation alongside our peers in
Page 8
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
international research infrastructure fora (International Conference on Research Infrastructures
(ICRI), Research Data Alliance (RDA)), within bilateral relations (EU-NZ, NZ-Aus), and through direct
collaboration on infrastructures. The proposed international science and innovation strategy appears
as a potentially suitable vehicle for further discussion on this topic.
Page 9
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
Appendix 1. RSNZ panel members
Professor Marston Conder, Dept Mathematics, University of Auckland
Professor Harlene Hayne, Vice-Chancellor, University of Otago
Professor Shaun Hendy, Dept Physics, University of Auckland
Professor Peter Hunter (Chair), Director, Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland
Professor Warren McNabb, Research Director, AgResearch Ltd
Dr William Rolleston, Businessman and President, Federated Farmers
Professor Warren Tate, Dept Biochemistry, University of Otago
Professor Margaret Tennant, Professor Emeritus, School of Humanities, Massey University
Professor Christine Winterbourn, Centre for Free Radical Research, University of Otago, Christchurch
Appendix 2. Suggested corrections and additions
1. Over-emphasis on economic outcomes. The NSSI document is primarily concerned with economic
outcomes, which are of course a key focus of MBIE and a very important outcome for scientific
research, but it is not the only important outcome. Surely a statement of national science investment
should comprehensively address many other Government policy areas such as how best to achieve a
sustainable environment, a healthy population and a cohesive society.
2. Misconception of Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF). The RSNZ is concerned that PBRF
funding is misrepresented as being available to support investigator-initiated research. Money from
the PBRF is won by tertiary education organisations (TEOs) on the basis of their research
performance, but it is certainly NOT research funding per se. It is a component of bulk funding to
TEOs, and was introduced as a complement to teaching subsidies, which on their own do not
differentiate between the type of TEO or the courses they offer or the staff they employ to teach
them. This part of bulk funding can be (and is) spent on a wide range of activities other than
research, such as the salaries of its well-qualified staff and other support and infrastructure needed
to maintain an environment for teaching at degree-level, especially postgraduate level. PBRF also
covers all university disciplines, not only science. It is inappropriate to describe PBRF money as
science research funding, and it should not be included in the figures for New Zealand's R&D spend27.
A similar argument can be made for at least some of the CRI Core funding.
3. Research categorisation. The description of different kinds of research on p13 is useful but this
categorisation is a coarse one and many activities stretch across more than one of the categories.
4. Vote Education expenditure on research. In the chart on p28, the figure of $3b for universities from
Vote Tertiary Education is inaccurate. It is about twice the reality. Approx. $1b is spent on teaching
subsidies, and about another $280m through the PBRF, and the rest in much smaller amounts. It
looks as though the document is wrongly claiming that the money provided to students in allowances
and loans is "for universities". It may go to students but they spend most of it on living expenses, not
on their education. The same error is made in the list on p29.
5. University business contracts. In the second paragraph of p25 is a statement about only 4% of
university R&D being funded by business (in 2011). In fact this is variable. The University of Auckland
brings in over $100m pa through its UniServices arm28 (some from international contracts), and this is
over 10% of the University's entire budget, not just the part spent on research.
27
28
A small fraction (about 5% in the case of the UoA) is used to support research activities directly.
Some of this is sub-contract revenue which can be traced back to government grants.
Page 10
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
6. Business investment in science. p20 contains a statement that New Zealand's business expenditure
on R&D is low, which it certainly is. But the NSSI document should be addressing the low level of
business expenditure on R&D (BERD) to a far greater extent. Even the small amount that is written
about addressing the issue is not convincing. We should be developing measures to double or triple
BERD over a period of time. The evidence presented to suggest that there is a relatively low
utilisation of university research by business is misleading. As a percentage of business expenditure
on R&D, New Zealand businesses spent 2.9% on university R&D compared to the OECD average of
2.2% (using data from 2010-2012)29. Similarly businesses devoted about 8.5% of BERD30 on the CRIs
and government labs compared to 1.9% across the OECD. Thus one can make an argument that
business R&D is better connected to public sector R&D (both University and CRI) in New Zealand than
it is across the OECD. The low level of financing of HERD31 by industry noted in the NSSI simply
reflects the low level of expenditure in general.
29
http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm
Business expenditure on R&D
31 Higher education spending on R&D
30
Page 11
Comments on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024| August 2014
107 – IRANZ IRANZ FEEDBACK ON DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT 2014‐2024 IRANZ welcomed the opportunity to provide verbal feedback to MBIE officials on the 17th July, and now would like to take this opportunity to provide written comment on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014‐24 (NSSI). IRANZ is an association of ‘independent’, or non‐government owned research organisations. Member organisations have close connections with end users and provide research and innovation services to a broad range of sectors. Members include: 










Aqualinc Research Ltd – groundwater and water management BRANZ – building and construction Cawthron Institute – environmental, aquaculture and food CRL Energy Ltd – energy, minerals and environmental research Heavy Engineering Research Association (HERA) ‐ metals engineering Leather & Shoe Research (LASRA) ‐ Lincoln Agritech Ltd ‐ primary sector engineering and science technologies Motu Economic and Public Policy Research (Motu) Opus Research ‐ cities & infrastructure Titanium Industry Development Association (TiDA) Transport Engineering Research NZ Ltd (TERNZ). These organisations represent sectors and industries with a commitment to investing in research and centres of research excellence that have been successful over a number of years in attracting government and private sector research contracts. Together IRANZ organisations employ close to 450 people, and undertake over $65 million of research per annum. A particular strength of IRANZ members is their strong connections to and track record of delivery to industry. Several of the IRANZ member organisations are membership based. Others have significant client bases spanning central and local government, private companies, community groups and industry organisations. IRANZ members provide strategic research capability for New Zealand, as demonstrated by Government research funding forming a significant part of the revenue base for all member organisations – ranging from 5% to 77% of the organisation’s total revenue. IRANZ members have been a part of the New Zealand Research Landscape for a significant period of time, with five members having been delivering research for the benefit of New Zealand for more than 50 years. Research by IRANZ members has provided the basis for: 



the food safety reputation of New Zealand seafood (Cawthron Institute) changing New Zealand’s energy use statistics, and providing the evidence for MED/EECA to invest $1 billion in retrofitting insulation (IRANZ) reducing water dam storage volume requirements in Canterbury by 50%, significantly raising the affordability of water infrastructure (Aqualinc Research) making merino sheep a multipurpose animal, and provide opportunity to develop a New Zealand merino pelt and leather brand for high quality luxury leather products (LASRA) Page | 1 107 – IRANZ 




Scitox, a portable electrochemical analyzer for detecting toxicity and pollutants in waste water streams, has raised $1.6m in capital from NZ investors to advance this technology (Lincoln Agritech Ltd) the design of fire safe floor systems in multi‐storey steel framed buildings which enables the safe elimination of much fire protection resulting in significant building cost savings (HERA) a substantial reduction in the rollover rate of heavy vehicles since 2002 (TERNZ) a 100% New Zealand Company “Nuenz” which is taking nanofibre technology to a commercial scale (CRL Energy Ltd) faster and more effective recovery of communities and businesses from natural disasters (Opus Central Laboratories) SPECIFIC FEEDBACK The document itself is comprehensive and IRANZ supports the development of a ten year plan for science investment. Over recent years there have been significant changes which in some cases have included flow on consequences whose impacts on other parts of the science system have been greater than perhaps anticipated. As we go forward our preference is for a period of stability and consolidation to refine and fine tune existing arrangements and to allow research organisations and their end‐user partners to complete their adjustments to the most recent set of changes. Going forward we would like to see change and enhancement of the science system undertaken with and alongside the science community in an inclusive and consultative manner with an increased emphasis and effort placed on gaining development of sector strategy and subsequent investment signals as opposed to focusing the bulk of attention on the mechanics of making investments. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In particular: a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why? b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why? c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator‐, mission‐ and industry‐led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why? IRANZ supports a balanced approach to investment. We recognise that stability is important for research institutes to have a degree of funding stability in order to deliver high quality RS&T for New Zealand. Maintaining an appropriate balance between stability and introduction of new ideas and talents is not a trivial exercise. One mechanism to achieve this is through institutional funding, although we would note that similar results have been achieved through contestable processes, but this approach does rely on MBIE having strong connections to research organisations and their research and an understanding of end‐user needs. With all of the recent changes to the science system and science funding organisations it appears that MBIE resources have become more focussed on research policy and administration to the detriment of connectedness to research organisations and research. It is pleasing that MBIE recognises the important role of independent research organisations in the New Zealand science system and that independent research organisations have unique capability and skills that are an essential part of the science system. However, we also note that IRO capability funding is not considered institutional funding in the MBIE context; rather it is considered contestable funding. Page | 2 107 – IRANZ It is difficult to determine whether the balance is right or not and there is probably no optimal answer to this question. IRANZ believes that both direct funding to institutions and contestable funds have an important role in the science system. However, the mechanisms to achieve direct funding is important and shifting funds from contestable to direct funding has had the single biggest impact on the science system over the last few years. This is particularly so in the hazards and infrastructure; energy and minerals; and environment areas where levels of funding and the intervals of funding have been reduced to such a point where funding opportunities are very small and infrequent, while at the same time the level of overbidding has substantially increased. This has had a particularly profound effect on IRO’s. A consequence of these large gaps and small investment rounds is that industry and sector groups do not see value in engaging with the science system as timeframes are either ridiculously long with no certainty that issues that are of importance to them will be included in an RfP; or far too short, due to investment signals and priorities not being released until close to the time proposals are due, for industry to effectively engage. A further consequence of the recent changes is the increase in the level of research funding going being diverted from science. As more funding is devolved to organisations outside of MBIE the cost of administration and overheads is increasing, with in many cases three or more organisations taking administration and overhead expenses from the same money. IRANZ encourages MBIE to consider how these overhead and administration expenses can be optimised to ensure that science funding is not unnecessarily eroded further than it needs to be to deliver robust research in a transparent manner. IRANZ’s preferred options are: 





Increase contestable funding in areas where contestable pools have grown so small that investment processes total consistently in the low millions or less and where processes are infrequent (biennially or worse). This is especially important in research areas that do not align with CRI capabilities and strengths. Maintain and increase the contestable funding pool. IRANZ does not support the transfer of further funds from contestable to direct investment mechanisms. Place more emphasis and resource on the development of Sector Investment Plans, including engaging widely with research organisations, industry and government. This would result in Sector Investment Plans that aligned with and had buy in from key industry members and that were focussed in the issues of highest importance. Maintain all Sector Investment Plans as live documents even in years where no funding is available. This will allow industry to become and remain engaged with science and for research (including direct funded and contestable) to remain aligned to Sector Investment Plans and avoid sudden dramatic shifts in focus at short notice. Recognise the valuable contribution of IRO’s through ensuring that there are opportunities for medium to long‐term research programmes to be supported outside of CRI Core funding, university direct funding and National Science Challenges. With respect to the balance between investigator‐, mission‐ and industry‐led funding our preference is for a “pipeline” rather than a segmented approach, particularly in investigator and mission‐led research. IRANZ’s preference is for research, sector and industry involvement in both investigator and mission‐led research, although the balance and nature of sector and industry involvement will Page | 3 107 – IRANZ change over the course of the programme. Rather than assign whole contracts to one or other research type we would prefer MBIE to take a more holistic approach and focus on the processes and mechanisms in a research programme that encourage industry involvement throughout the research life‐cycle, including growing contributions from private sector sources as the research project matures. In other words the emphasis should be on the idea, the team (including industry) partners and robust governance and management plans rather than prescribed rules. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system perform, both individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve their performance? If so, how? While the different parts of Government’s overall investment systems generally perform adequately, there are some adjustments that could be made to improve overall system performance. Specifically;  Utilise consistent policies across government for key procedural issues such as: o The treatment of industry levies as co‐funding. In PGP programmes industry levies are recognised as co‐funding and a strong indication of sector support for a project. This is not the case for Callaghan Innovation, yet New Zealand is a nation of SME’s. Getting sectors effectively engaged in R&D through judicious investment of levy funding and contributions of time and expertise from companies is an important step in identifying companies that have the potential and attitude to take the next step of investing in R&D. o Simplify and make consistent eligibility rules for different funds. For example Envirolink is restricted to CRI’s universities and not for profit research organisations when there is no clear rationale restricting all IRO’s from providing advice through envirolink. o Vastly improve availability and utility of information on current and past projects funded by government. There is little to no information on projects which are funded by CRI core funding, yet MBIE expects applicants to contestable processes not to duplicate these projects. As applicants we have no desire to waste time and resources, and risk damaging relationships with industry partners by developing projects that duplicate existing projects. Additionally, in recent times the MBIE “who got funded” database has become dated and provides only limited information and has too few search or filter options. PGP has an excellent database of PGP funded projects that would be a good model. Are the current sector‐specific research funds in need of change? If so what direction of change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are: d. the multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds and the complexity of funds e. the accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI, established or new entrants into the system f. the sector‐based nature of funding tools g. the length of funding allocation h. the form and processes of peer review Page | 4 107 – IRANZ In the short‐term the current sector‐specific research funds are in need of refinement rather than major change. In particular IRANZ supports the retention and expansion of the smart ideas funding mechanism, including development of effective ways of assessing the success of stage 1 ideas and allowing progression to stage 2 based on performance and potential impact, rather than a funding criteria for stage 2 based on a proportion of stage 1 applications. IRANZ supports combining enabling technologies and targeted research into a single “mission‐led” medium to long‐term programmes investment mechanism, with the proviso that a robust and inclusive process is developed to identify and prioritise strategy and missions. IRANZ supports the retention of the IRO Capability fund and would like to see this made available in all research areas. IRANZ does not support shifting the emphasis of contestable funds towards short‐term only investments. Maintaining a significant proportion of contestable funding in contracts of 3 to 5 years duration is essential for step‐changes to be made and new approaches to old (and new) problems to addressed. A degree of longevity is also desirable to improve industry connectedness to R&D. IRANZ also supports a review of funding levels and fund availability in out‐years to ensure that there is sufficient funding to enable meaningful progress towards sector / research area outcomes in a timely manner. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sector‐specific research funds? No, the basic criteria should be consistent; namely the quality and merit of the idea; the ability of the team (including non‐government partners) to deliver the impact promised; and the risk profile is acceptable and understood by applicants. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding investments? Where priorities and needs have been developed in an inclusive and comprehensive approach, which should include leveraging the strategy and prioritisation work of other parts of government and industry, and are agreed then IRANZ fully supports targeting research. Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available? Yes, one gap is in access to quality commercialisation expertise. MBIE could greatly enhance commercialisation, particularly at small and medium sized research organisations by providing subsidised access to high calibre commercialisation. This could be achieved by MBIE contracting a proportion of a commercialisation expert’s time which MBIE could then make available, on a fee for service, basis to research organisations requiring commercialisation advice. What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co‐investments in R&D, where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry, social and environmental needs? IRANZ would like to see MBIE encouraging and promoting engagement with industry, both directly and through industry bodies, from the strategy development process right through the assessing whether research has had the intended impact. In addition ensuring that there is sufficient lead time for industry to engage meaningfully in the development of research ideas and proposals would encourage more industry engagement, and more importantly continued industry engagement. Page | 5 107 – IRANZ What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users? In IRANZ member’s experience working with industry getting industry involved at the project inception stage and keeping them engaged throughout the research process results in greater industry ownership of a project and hence improved uptake. CONTACT DETAILS For any further information please contact: Ruth Berry Executive Officer IRANZ PO Box 10088 The Terrace Wellington 6143 Phone: 0508 447 269 Email: [email protected] Page | 6